Modeling of the Accidentality Phenomenon in the Construction Industry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research is very interisting.
Please improve english and references, e.g.:
- Maintenance strategy design in a sintering plant based on a multicriteria approach G. Di Bona, A. Forcina, D. Falcone International Journal of Management and Decision Making 2018 Vol. 17(1), pp. 29-49
- Total Efficient Risk Priority Number (TERPN): a new method for risk assessment G. Di Bona, A. Forcina, A Silvestri, A.Petrillo
Journal of Risk Research Volume 21, Issue 11, 2 November 2018, Pages 1384-1408
- Validation and application of a safety allocation technique (integrated hazard method) to an aerospace prototype(
Di Bona, G., Duraccio, V., Silvestri, A., Forcina, A.Email
Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control
2014, Pages 284-290
IASTED International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control, MIC 2014; Innsbruck; Austria; 17 February 2014 through 19 February 2014; Code 104422
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your review and critical comments, which have enabled us to improve our article. We apologize that the previous version of our paper did not meet your expectations. We hope that we have taken all your critical remarks into account in the current version of the paper. We also hope that the current version meets your expectations.
All the comments included in the review have been provided during the correction of the article.
Comment: The research is very interisting. Please improve english and references.
Response: The manuscript has been proofread by a native English speaker from the Department of Foreign Languages at Wroclaw University of Science and Technology. The English is now correct and clear.
The literature review has been corrected and supplemented with additional publications.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I think there are a great deal of efforts in this paper, However, the reviewer can hardly see its sound academic contributions to the body of knowledge.
· Line 17, “CKD” should be defined in its first use.
· I do not think this paper was reviewed by an English professional …
· Line 25, “model is of great importance” I believe this is a biased judgment and this “importance” should be decided by others and not the authors themselves. I suggest that the word “great” is removed.
· Lines 55 to 61, I think this section should be revised; it seems fragmented and there is no stated concrete base for achieving these objectives.
· Lines 62 to 68, I do not think it is needed to state the contents of the paper. I believe this piece of information should be removed.
· Line 73, “[7–14].” If this means 7 to 14! then this is too many references for alike sentence.
· Line 98, “as well as labour law regulations to be formulated or modified” I believe this is an important issue and it is a good additive to explain more about it. How this study might help?
· Line 230, “? - an apparent event that illustrates a hypothetical source of generating accidents” could this be explained in detail?
· Line 246, there a little confusing between the study aims here and lines 50 – 60
· Line 286, what is the source of this equation?
· Line 311, in the abstract: line 21, it says “2008-2016” while in here it says “2008-2014”
· Line 357, I would suggest creating a table for presenting the resulted probabilities.
· I do not think the randomness has been used anywhere in the study.
· I am not sure if we can call this is a model.
· I would suggest submitting the paper as a case study rather than a technical paper.
· I might see that your claim is that since a path is found then the preventive actions should be focusing on these kinds of circumstances. I think this is a good claim/purpose, yet the path that is used here is not that persuasive.
· There might be some limitations during the application of this study. I suggest adding a paragraph stating these limitations.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your review and critical comments, which have enabled us to improve our article. We apologize that the previous version of our paper did not meet your expectations. We hope that we have taken all your critical remarks into account in the current version of the paper. We also hope that the current version meets your expectations.
All the comments included in the review have been provided during the correction of the article.
Comment: Line 17, “CKD” should be defined in its first use.
Response: Line 17 has been corrected and the information “(Computer Knowledge Database – CKD)” has been added.
Comment: I do not think this paper was reviewed by an English professional
Response: The manuscript has been proofread by a native English speaker from the Department of Foreign Languages at Wroclaw University of Science and Technology. We now hope that the English is correct and clear.
Comment: Line 25, “model is of great importance” I believe this is a biased judgment and this “importance” should be decided by others and not the authors themselves. I suggest that the word “great” is removed.
Response:
Thank you very much for your valuable remark about the used phrase. We agree that the term "great" has been misused in the text and it has now been removed from the article.
Comment: Lines 55 to 61, I think this section should be revised; it seems fragmented and there is no stated concrete base for achieving these objectives.
Response: This section has been revised (lines 54-60).
For this purpose, a model of the development of an accident situation in the construction industry was developed. It enables the phenomenon of accidentality and the IT database on occupational accidents to be investigated. Tests were carried out on the model for the selected set of accidents. The circumstances in which accidents and accident scenarios most frequently occur were then identified, and on this basis, scientific and prophylactic conclusions were formulated.
Comment: Lines 62 to 68, I do not think it is needed to state the contents of the paper. I believe this piece of information should be removed.
Response: As suggested by the Reviewer, the structure of the article has been removed from the text.
Comment: Line 73, “[7–14].” If this means 7 to 14! then this is too many references for alike sentence.
Response: The literature review has been corrected.
Comment: Line 98, “as well as labour law regulations to be formulated or modified” I believe this is an important issue and it is a good additive to explain more about it. How this study might help?
Response: The following additions have been included in the conclusions (lines 411-415): "The obtained test results form the basis for determining the most dangerous types of construction works and situations in the construction industry. The identification of such situations is the basis for formulating new, or modifying existing, labour law provisions, e.g. regarding the imposition of fines on enterprises in which significant safety deficiencies were found."
Comment: Line 230, “? - an apparent event that illustrates a hypothetical source of generating accidents” could this be explained in detail?
Response: The following addition has been made to the text (lines 220-222):
Due to the fact that each accident occurs on different building sites in terms of their location, in order to avoid several independent entries to the model in nodes a021 to a029, an additional node M was introduced - an apparent event that illustrates a common hypothetical source of generating accidents.
Comment: Line 246, there a little confusing between the study aims here and lines 50 – 60
Response: The description of the purpose of the research was corrected in the article. Both fragments are now consistent.
Comment: Line 286, what is the source of this equation?
Response: The source of this equation has been added. The article uses the classical probability definition. Indexes proposed in brackets (φ, ψ) are contractual designations of the preceding and following nodes in any relations.
Comment: Line 311, in the abstract: line 21, it says “2008-2016” while in here it says “2008-2014”
Response: This was our mistake. The right period of time is 2008-2016. This text has been revised.
Comment: Line 357, I would suggest creating a table for presenting the resulted probabilities.
Response: Table 4 presents a summary of relations connecting neighbouring nodes. Information about presenting the resulting probabilities has been added to the text (lines 349-351).
As a result of the conducted calculations, the following course of the critical path was obtained: m - a021 - b22 - c6 - d02 - e5 - f02 - g3 - h01 - u150 - r1. The values of relations that connect the neighboring nodes that have the largest number of activations and that lie on the critical path are shown in Table 4.
Comment: I do not think the randomness has been used anywhere in the study.
Response: The randomness of the phenomenon was not taken into account in the conducted research. The research was carried out on the basis of available documents - Control Protocols, which describe the circumstances of each accident.
Comment: I am not sure if we can call this is a model.
Response: The model is a simplified reflection of reality - a scheme that shows the operation, structure, features or dependences of a phenomenon. The dependence network that is presented in Figure 3, called the "A model for the development of an accident situation in the construction industry", reflects the set of all possible circumstances of accidents that may occur in the construction industry. This network is a base model for conducting research and analysis of various accident sets. In turn, the network that is shown in Figure 4 is a result of research and analyses carried out for a set of 485 accidents. It is undoubtedly a reflection of a certain reality, which is why it was defined as a model.
Of course, the results obtained from the model presented in Figure 3 may change depending on the size of the set of analysed accidents. Research on the variability of the area of events and relationships in which accidents occur in the construction industry are currently the subject of research and analysis.
Comment: I would suggest submitting the paper as a case study rather than a technical paper.
Response: The title of the article indicates that its aim is to present the process of modeling the accidentality phenomenon in the construction industry, namely the development of the methodology of investigating accidents. The proposed model is an element of the formulated methodology. The case study included in Chapter 5 presents the practical application of the proposed methodology for the analysis of a specific set of occupational accidents in the construction industry. According to the authors, this methodology is universal, and we therefore decided to submit the paper as a technical paper, and not as a case study. The decision about the type of work is left to the Editorial Office.
Comment: I might see that your claim is that since a path is found then the preventive actions should be focusing on these kinds of circumstances. I think this is a good claim/purpose, yet the path that is used here is not that persuasive.
Response: In activities that aim to prevent accidents, we should pay special attention to those circumstances that most often lead to accidents. The critical path presented in the article is the path with the highest probability, which points to the circumstances that most often lead to an accident. It should be mentioned that in the conducted research, other paths - sequences of relations with a significant number of activations - were also obtained. This indicates other accident-related circumstances for which employers, people performing direct supervision over employees, and also labour safety inspectors should pay attention to.
Comment: There might be some limitations during the application of this study. I suggest adding a paragraph stating these limitations.
Response: Section 6 - Conclusions and Limitations - has been revised.
The following addition has been made to the text (lines 420-422): The presented model of the development of an accident situation is focused on the circumstances that lead to accidents. The model cannot be used to analyse the causes of accidents. This issue is currently the subject of research and analysis.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is very good from a scientific point of view and the methodology used. The output is current, the conclusions are correct. It is good that the authors also identify the limits of their outputs. Especially "The model cannot be used to analyzed the causes of accidents" but it is focused on the circumstances that lead to accidents. I have some questions or recommendations:
1) pg. 4 Figure 1. line description W1, W2, Wl ??? uppercase or lowercase letters, it is not clear what the picture accurately describes;
2) pg. 7 Figure 3. (pg. 11 Figure 4) first left and text on line 222 - m / M and the Figures are not readable well;
3) pg. 11 Table 2. compare items with word "other" (bother, cother...) with Table 1., where numeric codes are. It can be assumed that these are the same items.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you very much for your review and critical comments, which have enabled us to improve our article. We apologize that the previous version of our paper did not meet your expectations. We hope that we have taken all your critical remarks into account in the current version of the paper. We also hope that the current version meets your expectations.
All the comments included in the review have been provided during the correction of the article.
Comment: 1) pg. 4 Figure 1. line description W1, W2, Wl ??? uppercase or lowercase letters, it is not clear what the picture accurately describes.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments. Description of the figure 1 has been added:
W – a set of all identified accident scenarios,
wl – a single accident event that follows a specific individual scenario. The following accident scenarios are identified by an index l placed next to a small letter w,
L – a set of all occupational accidents, where: l=1,2, …, L.
Comment: 2) pg. 7 Figure 3. (pg. 11 Figure 4) first left and text on line 222 - m / M and the Figures are not readable well.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments. The symbol “m” in a line 222 has been changed. In order to improve the visibility of the figures, their size has been modified.
Comment: 3) pg. 11 Table 2. compare items with word "other" (bother, cother...) with Table 1., where numeric codes are. It can be assumed that these are the same items.
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments.
The designation “other” in the table 1 refers to sets of unnamed, unknown elements of particular nodal groups. Whereas the designation “other” in the table 2 means nonessential nodes for which the number of occurrences was less than 5% (more detail described in section 5).
To avoid misinterpreting nodes in table 1, "other, unnamed or unknown" have been coded by the numeric index, e.g. „a029 - other unnamed or unknown places in this group” while in table 2 have been coded by the following index “aother”.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for taking the time in revising the older version.
Since there was no randomness used in data collection, I believe this study should be submitted as a case study and not a technical paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you very much for your second review and your comment.
Comment: Since there was no randomness used in data collection, I believe this study should be submitted as a case study and not a technical paper.
Response: We understand your comment and the decision about the type of work is left to the Editorial Office.
Nevertheless, we would like to emphasize that the title of the article indicates that its aim is to present the process of modeling the accidentality phenomenon in the construction industry, namely the development of the methodology of investigating accidents. The proposed model is an element of the formulated methodology. The case study included in Chapter 5 presents the practical application of the proposed methodology for the analysis of a specific set of occupational accidents in the construction industry. According to the authors, this methodology is universal, and we therefore decided to submit the paper as a technical paper, and not as a case study.
Conclusion: in a situation in which the Editorial Office decide to qualify the paper as a case study - we agree with the choice of the Editorial Office.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Theoretical framework is old fashioned.
Please do not use the concept of accident rate but accidentality. Accident rate is not the object of research in safety science (for example in first paragraph).
In line 114 authors mentioned Eurostat as a model. There is a number of researchers applying accident models to the variables in ESAW method. As this study is developed in such framework, references are needed of studies of causes and circumstances of accidents in construction using ESAW data. At the same time the use of the word model is puzzling as the research presents a methodology not a model. If so you will realize that the model proposed is not such model.
Regarding model in Figure 2, I see that node R is supposed to be the result but it is only the severity of the result. The result is the accident occurrence itself. Please explain which is the effect and the causes. At the same time node M seem to be an strange concept. Authors assume that there is an unknown source of the accident or it is the consequence of causes not coded.
In my opinion all the nodes from A to U are not causes but circumstances of accidents (please see ESAW methodology. Your model is not conceptually coherent. In my opinion you need to change the definition of nodes as causes. By the way you have no causes identified in the model. Anyway, the main problem is that ordering the nodes is not a reason to expect a relation cause-effect between them. At the same time such hypothesis would make not possible the relation between nodes not adjacent.
In section 3,Table 1, there are a number of categories for each of the accident circumstances. They are not the expected ESAW although the variables seem the same. Please clarify who coded them and if original accident reports were or were not coded using ESAW methodology.
The model in Figure 3 is difficult to understand. For example, node C (action performed) is causing node D (agent used)? or node F (agent of the deviation) is causing node G (injury)? Your model is just a collection of ordered circumstances of accidents but the arcs between nodes are not cause - effect relations. In fact, the results presented are the prevalence of the possible combinations of categories of the circumstances.
What authors name as activation between nodes is really a contingency table between two categorical circumstantial variables of the accident. In fact results in Table 4 and Figure 5 are just the prevalence of the different combination of circumstances. I do not see the need of order in nodes.
Therefore I do not see a real new model but a case study of 485 accidents in some regions of Poland. In that case, a comparison is needed with previous results to see if the accident circumstances show any new knowledge. For that purpose, coding without ESAW would make difficult such comparison.
Other comments
Do not use the expression "own study" in tables and figures. If you need to clarify that they are part of the results use "own elaboration" instead.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your review and your critical comment, which allow to do our article better. We apologize that the previous version of our paper did not meet your expectations. We hope that in the current version of the paper, we have taken into account all your critical remarks. We also hope, that the current version meets your expectations.
After a thorough analysis of the received article review, a different title of the article was proposed. It more accurately corresponds to the content and is as follows: "Modelling of the accidentality phenomenon in the construction industry".
Our manuscript had checked by a native English speaking from Department of Foreign Languages from Wroclaw University of Science and Technology. We hope that now the English is correct and readable.
All the comments included in the review have been provide during the correction of the article.
Comment: Theoretical framework is old fashioned.
Response: Elements of graph theory, mathematical statistics, the method of experts in the area of decision-making, and IT programming were used in the research. The authors consider the used methods to be appropriate for solving the investigated problem.
Comment: Please do not use the concept of accident rate but accidentality. Accident rate is not the object of research in safety science (for example in first paragraph).
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable remark about the used phrase. We agree that the term "accident rate" has been misused in the text and it has now been replaced in the article with the proposed phrase "accidentality".
Comment: In line 114 authors mentioned Eurostat as a model. There is a number of researchers applying accident models to the variables in ESAW method. As this study is developed in such framework, references are needed of studies of causes and circumstances of accidents in construction using ESAW data. At the same time the use of the word model is puzzling as the research presents a methodology not a model. If so you will realize that the model proposed is not such model.
Response: We agree with the reviewer's comments. The subject of the article is the methodology of investigating the circumstances and causes of accidents. In the current version, the title of the article has been changed into "Modelling of the accidentality phenomenon in the construction industry ". This title better reflects the presented research. The final result of the conducted research is a graphic and an IT model that enable the circumstances and course of a selected set of accidents in the construction industry to be investigated. The literature review has been updated with publications about the circumstances and causes of occupational accidents in the construction industry.
Comment: Regarding model in Figure 2, I see that node R is supposed to be the result but it is only the severity of the result. The result is the accident occurrence itself. Please explain which is the effect and the causes. At the same time node M seem to be an strange concept. Authors assume that there is an unknown source of the accident or it is the consequence of causes not coded.
In my opinion all the nodes from A to U are not causes but circumstances of accidents (please see ESAW methodology. Your model is not conceptually coherent. In my opinion you need to change the definition of nodes as causes. By the way you have no causes identified in the model. Anyway, the main problem is that ordering the nodes is not a reason to expect a relation cause-effect between them. At the same time such hypothesis would make not possible the relation between nodes not adjacent.
Response: We agree with the above comments of the reviewer. The text of the article contained weaknesses that made it incomprehensible. We have introduced changes to the article that eliminate irregularities.
· The R node determines the severity of an accident (light, severe or fatal). The description of node R has been changed in the current version of the article.
· In the single-accident model, the initial node M was omitted because it could mislead the reader into thinking that there is an unknown source of an accident.
· Nodes A to U are successive events (apparent and real) that illustrate the circumstances of an accident and its course. These nodes are not the causes of the accident, which was emphasized in the corrected version of the article.
· The proposed IT Database contains a segment that includes information about the causes of accidents. Relations between the causes and their impact on the number of accidents are analysed in the research being currently conducted.
Comment: In section 3,Table 1, there are a number of categories for each of the accident circumstances. They are not the expected ESAW although the variables seem the same. Please clarify who coded them and if original accident reports were or were not coded using ESAW methodology.
Response: Table 1 contains the categories and sub-categories of the nodes that can be found in the proposed model. The used numeric codes are the same as those proposed by ESAW.
The authors of the article, after a thorough analysis of post-accident protocols, took into account the detailed cases listed in Table 1 and determined the circumstances of an accident independently for each accident. They then coded them accordingly using the adopted designations (Table 1).
Comment: The model in Figure 3 is difficult to understand. For example, node C (action performed) is causing node D (agent used)? or node F (agent of the deviation) is causing node G (injury)? Your model is just a collection of ordered circumstances of accidents but the arcs between nodes are not cause - effect relations. In fact, the results presented are the prevalence of the possible combinations of categories of the circumstances.
Response: We agree that the proposed model is a set of ordered circumstances of an accident. The model does not identify the causes that lead to the occurrence of accidents. The individual paths in the graph represent possible accident scenarios. The aim of our research was to determine the most recurring scenarios. Therefore, not only the number of node activations in the graph was important, but also the number of activations of particular relationships between nodes, as well as their ordering. Such knowledge indicates the directions of the necessary preventive actions.
Comment: What authors name as activation between nodes is really a contingency table between two categorical circumstantial variables of the accident. In fact results in Table 4 and Figure 5 are just the prevalence of the different combination of circumstances. I do not see the need of order in nodes.
Response: We analyse a process that consists of many accidents. It is a dynamic process. Due to the fact that each accident proceeds according to a different scenario, only nodes that specifically describe the circumstances of an accident are active in the model. The activation of two neighbouring nodes also means the activation of the relationship between them. We have introduced the term "activation of nodes and relationships" because in a set of all possible circumstances, when a specific accident occurs, only the circumstances that correspond to it are relevant. These are active nodes and relationships, and other nodes and relationships are not active.
The order of the nodes presented in Figure 5 results from the sequence of successive events that illustrates the changing circumstances of an accident, whereas the order of nodes results from the order of occurrence of detailed cases in the model, which was assumed in Table 1.
Comment: Therefore I do not see a real new model but a case study of 485 accidents in some regions of Poland. In that case, a comparison is needed with previous results to see if the accident circumstances show any new knowledge. For that purpose, coding without ESAW would make difficult such comparison.
Response: The research carried out on a sample of 485 accidents is a case study. Further research will confirm whether the obtained results, e.g. the course of the critical path, the probability of the occurrence of specific relations, as well as others, are of permanent nature. In our opinion, the developed model accurately reflects the phenomenon of accidentality in the construction industry, which is analysed as a dynamic process. Confirmation of this hypothesis requires further research that will involve the introduction of new accidents into the IT database, and also the performing of calculations for new sets of data. A comparison of the obtained results with regards to the parameters of the phenomenon will show whether the obtained results are of a permanent nature and if they can be generalized.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
In my oppinion you should Improve this:
- Abstract more clear
- Introduction should explain better the structure of the paper.
- The bibliograpgy must be improved
- To be more clear how this model could be preventive.
In my opinion the problem is not the content but the message be more assertive.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your review and your critical comment, which allow to do our article better. We apologize that the previous version of our paper did not meet your expectations. We hope that in the current version of the paper, we have taken into account all your critical remarks. We also hope, that the current version meets your expectations.
After a thorough analysis of the received article review, a different title of the article was proposed. It more accurately corresponds to the content and is as follows: "Modelling of the accidentality phenomenon in the construction industry".
Our manuscript had checked by a native English speaking from Department of Foreign Languages from Wroclaw University of Science and Technology. We hope that now the English is correct and readable.
All the comments included in the review have been provide during the correction of the article.
Comment: Abstract more clear
Response: The summary of the article has been corrected as follows:
“The aim of the conducted research was to develop a methodology of investigating the accidentality phenomenon in the construction industry, which is considered as a process that is created by a sequence of accidents occurring at discrete periods of time and at various construction sites in terms of their location, construction and technical equipment. In order to investigate the circumstances of accidents, a methodology developed by the European Statistical Office of the European Union (ESAW) was used during the research. The basic elements of the proposed methodology is the IT database (CKD), which includes information about the circumstances and causes of accidents and also constitutes a repository for the collected data, as well as a graphic and IT model of the accident process in the form of a directed graph. In order to detect the characteristic features of the accidentality phenomenon in the construction industry, a simulation of a sequence that consists of 485 occupational accidents that occurred in 2008-2016 in five Polish voivodeships was carried out. The conducted research and analysis allowed the most common accident scenarios that occur in the construction industry to be identified, as well as the probability of their occurrence and the critical path in the graph that indicates the most accident-causing activities to be determined. The proposed model is of great importance for construction practice. Based on a large set of data on accidents included in the CKD, it is possible to study the impact of the following on the accidentality phenomenon: technologies used in the construction industry, the types of carried out construction works, and the methods used to organize work and equipment.”
Comment: Introduction should explain better the structure of the paper.
Response: The introduction describes the structure of the article as follows:
“The structure of the article is as follows: Section 1 is an introduction to the issue of the article. Section 2 contains a review of the subject literature regarding the modelling of the accidentality phenomenon. Section 3 presents the assumptions adopted for the creation of the model. Section 4 is a description of the proposed model in the form of a directed graph, as well as the methodology of the activation of nodes and relations between neighbouring nodes in the graph. Section 5 includes the results of research and their analysis and in Section 6 the research is summarized and conclusions are drawn. The studies involved elements of graph theory, mathematical statistics, as well as the method of experts in the area of decision making and IT programming.”
Comment: The bibliograpgy must be improved
Response: The literature review has been corrected and supplemented with additional publications.
Comment: To be more clear how this model could be preventive.
Response: The proposed model was developed in the IT version. The results of the calculations that were obtained from the model can form the basis for conducting training in the field of occupational safety. By selecting accidents from the IT Database that are characteristic for technologies used in the construction industry, as well as characteristic for used devices and the construction of executed building objects, it is possible to determine the accident scenarios that are characteristic for these accidents and to indicate the probability of their occurrence.
The article, in the "Conclusions" chapter, has been supplemented with practical aspects of using the model.
The results of research and analysis that are presented in the article do not exhaust all the problems related to the modelling of accidentality in the construction industry. The subject area is developmental and, in the authors' opinion, it may be continued in the following areas: the study of the impact of the type of constructed building objects, used technologies and also organizational methods on accidentality in the construction industry; the determination of risk factors related to the solutions used in the Polish construction industry in the field of mechanization and technology; the study of using methods of artificial intelligence for the prediction of accident scenarios and for forecasting the phenomenon of accidentality.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well-written with minor grammatical mistakes. The main issue is the results section and the conclusion. It is unclear how the model results can provide insights for causation or how the model is to be deployed. The conclusions may be interesting for the 485 analyzed cases but it is not clear what should be a sequence of implementation.
Limitations of the research as well as future research need to be discussed as well.
The following references are not cited:
-Abdelhamid, T. S., and Everett, J. G. (2000). “Identifying Root Causes of Construction Accidents”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 126(1), 52-60.
- Mitropoulos, P., Abdelhamid, T. S., and Howell, G. A. (2005). “Dynamic Causal Model Of The Factors Affecting Construction Accidents”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 131(7), 816-825.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your review and your critical comment, which allow to do our article better. We apologize that the previous version of our paper did not meet your expectations. We hope that in the current version of the paper, we have taken into account all your critical remarks. We also hope, that the current version meets your expectations.
After a thorough analysis of the received article review, a different title of the article was proposed. It more accurately corresponds to the content and is as follows: "Modelling of the accidentality phenomenon in the construction industry".
Our manuscript had checked by a native English speaking from Department of Foreign Languages from Wroclaw University of Science and Technology. We hope that now the English is correct and readable.
All the comments included in the review have been provide during the correction of the article.
Comment: The paper is well-written with minor grammatical mistakes. The main issue is the results section and the conclusion. It is unclear how the model results can provide insights for causation or how the model is to be deployed. The conclusions may be interesting for the 485 analyzed cases but it is not clear what should be a sequence of implementation.
Response: The model presented in the article makes it possible to analyse various circumstances that lead to an accident in the construction industry. The results of the calculations presented in the article concerned only a set of 485 accidents, which were saved in the IT Database. This set is constantly replenished. From the set of accidents included in the IT Database, it is possible to distinguish subsets of accidents that are characteristic for particular technologies, constructions and devices used in the construction industry. The results of comparative research can be the basis for the determination of the most dangerous areas in the construction industry. Knowledge of the circumstances of accidents will allow labour law regulations to be properly formulated or modified, as well as preventive activities and training in the field of occupational safety to be properly targeted. This will certainly reduce the number of accidents.
The above observations were included in point 6 of the conclusions.
Comment: Limitations of the research as well as future research need to be discussed as well.
Response: Limitations:
· the presented model of accidentality development is only focused on the circumstances leading to accidents;
· The IT Database also contains information on the causes of accidents that are currently the subject of research and analysis;
· The results of research and analysis that are presented in the article do not exhaust all the problems related to the modelling of accidentality in the construction industry. The subject area is developmental and, in the authors' opinion, it may be continued in the following areas: the study of the impact of the type of constructed building objects, used technologies and also organizational methods on accidentality in the construction industry; the determination of risk factors related to the solutions used in the Polish construction industry in the field of mechanization and technology; the study of using methods of artificial intelligence for the prediction of accident scenarios and for forecasting the phenomenon of accidentality.
Comment: The following references are not cited:
-Abdelhamid, T. S., and Everett, J. G. (2000). “Identifying Root Causes of Construction Accidents”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 126(1), 52-60.
- Mitropoulos, P., Abdelhamid, T. S., and Howell, G. A. (2005). “Dynamic Causal Model Of The Factors Affecting Construction Accidents”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 131(7), 816-825.
Response: The proposed additional literature publications were included in the literature review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This study lacks novelty and it is not clear that how practitioners can be benefitted from the proposed model. There are several techniques to model sequences and characteristics that lead to an accident, authors have not reviewed those studies and point of departure is not clear.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your review and your critical comment, which allow to do our article better. We apologize that the previous version of our paper did not meet your expectations. We hope that in the current version of the paper, we have taken into account all your critical remarks. We also hope, that the current version meets your expectations.
After a thorough analysis of the received article review, a different title of the article was proposed. It more accurately corresponds to the content and is as follows: "Modelling of the accidentality phenomenon in the construction industry".
Our manuscript had checked by a native English speaking from Department of Foreign Languages from Wroclaw University of Science and Technology. We hope that now the English is correct and readable.
All the comments included in the review have been provide during the correction of the article.
Comment: This study lacks novelty and it is not clear that how practitioners can be benefitted from the proposed model. There are several techniques to model sequences and characteristics that lead to an accident, authors have not reviewed those studies and point of departure is not clear.
Response: The review of the subject literature indicates that the models that were developed until now are mainly used to analyse the course of a single accident. The model proposed in the article is more complex and complicated than the previously developed models and is used to investigate the circumstances of many accidents that create a discrete dynamic process and occur at discrete moments of time at various construction sites in terms of their location, construction and technical equipment. This approach to the analysis of the accidentality phenomenon in the construction industry, which takes into account the processional nature of an accident, as well as the variety of conditions for the implementation of building objects and their construction specifics, will provide information about the assessed phenomenon that would not have been received on the basis of analysis of individual accidents and available statistical data.
The proposed model was developed in the IT version. The results of the calculations that were obtained from the model can form the basis for conducting training in the field of occupational safety. By selecting accidents from the IT Database that are characteristic for technologies used in the construction industry, as well as characteristic for used devices and the construction of executed building objects, it is possible to determine the accident scenarios that are characteristic for these accidents and to indicate the probability of their occurrence.
The model presented in the article makes it possible to analyse various circumstances that lead to an accident in the construction industry. The results of the calculations presented in the article concerned only a set of 485 accidents, which were saved in the IT Database. This set is constantly replenished. From the set of accidents included in the IT Database, it is possible to distinguish subsets of accidents that are characteristic for particular technologies, constructions and devices used in the construction industry. The results of comparative research can be the basis for the determination of the most dangerous areas in the construction industry. Knowledge of the circumstances of accidents will allow labour law regulations to be properly formulated or modified, as well as preventive activities and training in the field of occupational safety to be properly targeted. This will certainly reduce the number of accidents.
The literature review has been corrected and supplemented with additional literature publications.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
I still believe that this study lacks novelty.
