Analysing the Impact of Human Error on the Severity of Truck Accidents through HFACS and Bayesian Network Models
, Ludfi Pratiwi Bowo, Siti Hidayanti Mutiara Kurnia, Indra Kurniawan, Sinung Nugroho, Novi Irawati, Mutharuddin, Tetty Sulastry Mardiana and Subaryata
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPage 1, Keywords: My suggestion is to include “drivers” in the keywords.
Page 3, line 117, “(Ghasemi et al., 2022; J. Wang et al., 2022)”: Please change the specific references to [54] and [53] (instead of the names of the authors). Please also note that “Wang et al, 2022, ref [53], must appear before “Ghasemi et al., 2022;”, ref [54].
Page 4, Section 3.2. Data Collection, lines 182-183, “…recorded 48 road accidents caused by trucks from 2008 to 2023”: Please verify this number (it is a rather small number for such a long period at a national level). In addition, what are the types of the under study specific road accidents (e.g., light, heavy, fatal etc.)
Page 4, Section 3.2. Data Collection, lines 184-185, “Only 35 data reports were qualified to be analysed and modelled by BN”. Even though you recognize the small sample size as the main limitation of your research (page 14, line 430), my suggestion is to fully justify within the text how such a small sample was considered appropriate for the purposes of the analysis and how this small sample affects the validity of the results.
Page 6, line 210, “According to [2], the conditions of the driver in bus accidents…”: Please justify within your manuscript the reason why the conditions concerning “bus accidents” can be used in your research which refers to “truck accidents”.
Page 14, line 430, “…the most significant limitation was insufficient data…”: Please include in your manuscript the rest limitations and constraints.
Page 14, Section 6. Conclusion: My suggestion is to include a special subsection which must be dedicated to “policy recommendations” arising from your findings and address each one to the respective stakeholder(s) (i.e., who and how will benefit from your work).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article addresses the pervasive global issue of truck accidents, attributing them primarily to driver error. It employs the Human Factor Classification System (HFACS) and Bayesian Network (BN) analysis to scrutinize causal factors, emphasizing the influential role of driver violations in fatalities and multiple-vehicle accidents. Notably, the backward inference reveals a significant impact of mechanical system malfunctions on driver operating errors. The study provides valuable insights for regulators and trucking companies aiming to proactively mitigate the occurrence of truck accidents.
The article has an extremely good density in terms of information and is extremely well-defined, it includes all the necessary aspects of a journal article.
There are some observations that you should keep in mind, and these are:
The comprehensive description of the objective, the main purpose, and how the studied theme impacts the field.
Exposure to the degree of novelty and how you think it can be implemented in practical cases.
Exposure of the novelty brought by the addressed topic about what was previously developed.
Exposing a comparison between what was developed and what the research team achieved in this paper.
Exposing how the current approach impacts all other research.
These extremely pertinent conclusions are to be able to support the entire study.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
No obs.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors presented research that aimed to apply the HFACS (Human Factor Classification System) to examine the causal factors behind the unsafe behaviours of drivers and the resulting accident consequences. In addition, Bayesian Network (BN) analysis was adopted to discern the relationships between failure modes within the HFACS framework.
The organisation of the manuscript is clear, the research methodology is acceptable. The authors described in detail the results of the conducted research and gave their conclusions.
The paper is well structured. The methodology is clear. The authors described in detail the results of the conducted research and gave their conclusions.
Although I think this is good research, I have some suggestions for improvements:
- For technical improvement: every chapter and subchapter should start with the text, not the figure or table. Therefore, reorganise subchapters 3.1., 4.1. and 4.2.3.
- In the Discussion, the authors wrote that the most significant limitation was insufficient data. Please explain what kind of data.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.Bayesian Network (BN) analysis was adopted to discern the relationships between failure modes within the HFACS framework. It is necessary to depict parent nodes and child nodes with different color in Figure 2.
2.How to calculate the posterior probability results of HFACS-BN for truck accident in Figure 3 ? Are there any mathematical formulas?
3. Could the authors generate a common algorithm to analyze the causal factors behind the unsafe behaviors of drivers and the resulting accident consequences in Material and Methods part? The algorithm could improve academic quality of this study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to express my deepest thanks to the authors because they have carefully addressed my comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have respected all the indications and observations, and at present, no other aspects need to be corrected.
Therefore the article can continue its course toward the publication process.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors made changes according to suggestions and improved their paper.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised the manuscript according to our comments. The quality of the manuscript is highly improved.
