Risk Assessment of Work Accident in Container Terminals Using the Fault Tree Analysis Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting and based on real data. However, it has to be improved upon.

Risk analysis methodology is not explained in details.

Explain, how did you obtain data in table 3.

Explain how did you get marks in table 4. What about objectivity and reliability of the risk assessment.

Explain how did you obtain data in tables 6, 7-11

Explain in detail, how did you perform each interview (Profile of interviewers, how many interviewers…) 

Explain in detail, data in tables 12, 13 and 14.

There is no section focused on results discussion. Authors should discuss the findings in broadest context. The findings should also be connected to the existing literature.

The conclusion has to be more comprehensive and focused on results.   

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

 

Thank you very much for your constructive comments.

 

We have revised our paper in accordance with your comments.

We summarize 9 comments that we have responded to and made improvements to our paper.

We attach a point-by-point response to ensure the revision results.

We hope you can receive and understand our paper improvements.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Your paper is interesting. Its dealing with risk assessment of work process in container terminal using Fault tree analysis (FTA).

I have to propose some necessary improvement of your paper:

1. Line 17 – 19 please check this sentence. Its not clear what you stated.
2. Add to keywords: Risk Assessment
3. When you use the references for literature review its not good that you use [1,2] and [3,4,5]. In this way all reference is the some and you have surplus. Always its better to add at least two sentence per reference so that is clear why this reference is important.
4. Please add what how you find reding and analysing references that you have incorporated in your research.
5. Subchapter 2.1 its little bit confuses. The title is Data collection. So, the reader expect data. You have one sentence line 86-89. Its too much generic. You need to be precisely. Please rewrite this subchapter. As you know data collection is crucial for research!
6. Line 84 PT?
7. Line 96 missing non-loading
8. Line 118 – its clear why is 5x5 matrix. But you reformulate so that is much clear?
9. Always is better first explain figures, tables and etc. and then show them.
10. Table 3 (but this proposal is for all tables). Align all numbers to right. Please use some number of decimal places. In this way your data will be clearly understandable.
11. Line 169. Its not appropriate to add religion in scientific paper. Please adjust to scientific standards in technical sciences.
12. Analysis was conducted very well.
13. Subchapter 3.5 please beware of complexity of Cost benefit analysis (CBA). For sure you did not make a CBA. Please rewrite.
14. Please add some mitigation measures according to your findings. You have made a well analysis so missing part is discussion of your results.
15. Add future research in conclusion.

Regards,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

 

Thank you very much for your constructive comments.

 

We have revised our paper in accordance with your comments.

We summarize 15 comments that we have responded to and made improvements to our paper.

We attach a point-by-point response to ensure the revision results.

We hope you can receive and understand our paper improvements.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Overall, the writing quality of this manuscript is very poor and it needs extensive review for language and technical aspects. In addition, the contributions are vague and the proposed methodology is not well developed. In the following, I provide detailed comments on each section of the manuscript. The manuscript requires high level of major revision and it needs a hard work from the author side in order to improve the quality of their work.

 

Abstract

In general, the abstract contains long sentences that make it hard to follow the text. This also occurs though the manuscript sections. For example, the first sentence in the abstract is very long.

The abstract must be rewritten to show the contributions of this work to existing literature and how the proposed method and obtained results can provide benefits to port management.

The quality of the writing needs to be improved. For example, in the abstract ‘a risk matrix method was used for risk assessment and those found..’  it is not well written sentence. It should be 'a risk matrix method was used for identifying the risks with high severity...'

Introduction

There exists also some inconsistencies and wrong terminologies. For example, in the first line of the introduction, the authors used port container terminals that is not correct and should be container terminal or container port.

The same line contains grammatical error. For example, ‘The container terminal port plays an important role in both the transportation and trade sectors and also serve as visible indications of a country’s economic growth.’  The word ‘serve’ should be ‘serves’.

The contribution of this study is vague and the reviewer could not find the contributions of the paper in the introduction or the abstract

In line 59, the author used the abbreviation (AHP) without mentioning what this means.

Risk analysis methodology

The author should mention the references from which they got this methodology.

It is also necessary to explain what are the formal safety assessment and the fault tree analysis.

Also, please explain why these two methods were used specifically. It is highly needed that the authors review other methods for risk assessment in literature and why the authors used the proposed methods specifically

Line 84 :’ or container ports and placed under the auspices of PT. Indonesia Port Company (IPC) managed by PT. Tanjung Priok Port (PTP).’ This sentence is an example of poor writing quality.

In the data collection section, the authors did not mention what types of data were collected by observations and interviews.

In section 2.2., why the authors classified the risks identified into these categories specifically. A justification is needed.

At the same section, the author mentioned a method for calculating percentages of accident causes. Is this method from literature? If yes, please add references if no, the author should mention if it is a new method and why it is better than other methods in literature.

In section 2.3, the first sentence is as follows: ‘Severity is the result of an incident usually stated as a loss of risk and assessed through the use of a numerical table.’ a loss of a risk should be due to risk. In addition, can you mention examples of these losses?

In section 2.6

‘The FTA method used describes and analyzes the cause of risk up to the root and this is the reason it is mostly applied as a tool for analysis, system evaluation, and decision.’  There is grammatical error as ‘the reason it is’ should be ‘the reason why’

In section 3.1

The author stated that ‘Over the past five years, 117 accidents classified into 25 types were recorded at the container terminal.what are the 25 types and also,..’ this sentence contains grammatical error and needs revision.

In figure 1, the title of the horizontal axis is missing

In table 3, what do K, B, N designate for?

The word ‘faktor’ in table 3 should be corrected

The format of table 3 is not good. For example, some words are divided into two lines

The quality of writing is poor and I could not follow the text and results in this section

In section 3.3.

The author stated that ‘These risks were subsequently analyzed using the Fault Tree Analysis method to determine the root causes of each risk category. It was conducted through a top-down approach of a Top Event followed by the detail reasons for its failure. The six risk categories were analyzed into one using this approach due to the insignificant similarities and differences between them.’

Why did you use top-down approach specifically?

From where you got this method, add reference

You reduced the fault tree analysis into FTA, so use this abbreviation through all sections of paper

In section 3.3.1

The author stated that ‘ Every fire accident at the port, from the dock, yard and gate operations were included in this category with the focus on fire incidents on loading and unloading equipment, buildings, vehicles or other non-human things which were classified risk to the property. Table 6 shows the common causes of fire over the five years studied.’

This sentence is badly written and contains huge amount of grammatical errors as indicated in red color.

The quality of figure 2 needs improvement.  

In section, 3.4  how do the author identify the RCOs for root causes?

In table 13, what is the meaning of PD? It does not make sense to abbreviate root cause by PD as indicated at the end of the table

In section 3.5

The authors mentioned that they performed cost-benefit analysis but they showed only the benefits without showing the cost.

Finally, the conclusion section lacks explaining the results and what managerial insights can be provided from the obtained results. Also, there are grammatical errors in the conclusion section for example (The risk control option (RCO) is was formulated based on the benefits gained in a certain period.)

There is no future work mentioned in the conclusion section.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

 

Thank you very much for your constructive comments.

 

We have revised our paper in accordance with your comments.

We summarize 14 comments that we have responded to and made improvements to our paper.

We attach a point-by-point response to ensure the revision results.

We hope you can receive and understand our paper improvements.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

An explanation, about obtaining all data in the paper, should be given.  For example, process of performing interviews with details about profile of interviewers and interviewees, how many interviewees were present…should be explained in the paper. Also, the methodology of obtaining data should be explained and connected with existing literature.

Recommendations of the researchers, given in the paper, should be based on results of the research or literature sources.

Section focused on results discussion should be more detailed. Authors should discuss the findings in “perspective of previous studies” and the goal of the paper. The findings should also be connected to the existing literature.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

 

Thank you very much for your constructive comments in the round 2.

 

We have revised our paper in accordance with your comments.

We summarize 3 comments that we have responded to and made improvements to our paper.

We attach a point-by-point response to ensure the revision results.

We hope you can receive and understand our paper improvements.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,
thank you for new version of your paper,
Regards,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your constructive comments. We are very happy if we can conduct research collaboration in the future.

Warm regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised version is better than the one submitted before. However, the reviewer thinks that the current manuscript still needs to be revised before publication.

The language of the paper still needs revision.

The contribution of the papers should be stated in the abstract.

In the response to my comments,  the author stated that ‘From the existing literature review, there is 70 much research on risk assessment in container terminals. However, there is still a research gap that focuses on the use of Fault Tree Analysis to find the cause of the risk.’’

This is not enough to differentiate your study from other existing ones. It is expected that you discuss this point in more details.

 It was expected that the author copies all modifications to his response file, but the author did not make this. This in turn makes it very hard for the reviewer to check the revised version. please consider this when you prepare the next response.

Also, it is not enough that you respond to the reviewer’s comments by stating that the comments were considered in the revised version, please copy all modifications to the author response file. This also must include your response to my previous comments.

Finally, there are some relevant studies that mentioned the issue of equipment breakdown and importance of container ports. These study can be mentioned to improve the literature review part.

For example

Ahmed Karam and Amr Eltawil "A Lagrangian relaxation approach for the integrated quay crane and internal truck assignment in container terminals." International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 24.1 (2016): 113-136.

Ahmed Karam, Amr Eltawil, Kristian Hegner Reinau, Energy-Efficient and Integrated Allocation of Berths, Quay Cranes, and Internal Trucks in Container Terminals, Sustainability 2020, 12, 3202.

Ahmed Karam, and El-Awady Attia. "Integrating collaborative and outsourcing strategies for yard trucks assignment in ports with multiple container terminals." International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 32.3-4 (2019): 372-391.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

 

Thank you very much for your constructive comments in the round 2.

 

We have revised our paper in accordance with your comments.

We summarize 6 comments that we have responded to and made improvements to our paper.

We attach a point-by-point response to ensure the revision results.

We hope you can receive and understand our paper improvements.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper can be published

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1,

Thank you very much for the constructive comments. We are very happy if we can conduct research collaboration in the future.

Warm regards,

Author