Assessment of Fire Safety Management for Special Needs Schools in South Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the manuscript , the authors explored 3 key sub-objectives, and  chose some variables and use regressive analysis or chi-square test to analyze the relationship between the variables. Why do the authors choose these factors as analysis variables for  sub-objectives ? please provide a brief explanation appropriately.

 

2.  In table 3, “To what extent are your school learners involved in fire safety programs?” is dependent variable,  how to get its estimate, Std errors and P value by regression analysis?

 

3. In Fig.1, the horizontal axis represents educational qualification, while the second annotaion is “prefer not to say”. What does this mean? Does it mean that the interviewee did not disclose their educational qualification? Or is the annotation incorrect?

 

4. The annotation of Figure 3 is confused and cannot match the corresponding content in the text.

 

 

5. And the same question exists in Figure 4. It's difficult to understand what the figure is expressing.

 

 

 

6. In line 112，“to manage” repeat twice.

 

7. In the manuscirpt , the author made many chi-square test between variables,  but are all these chi-square test are necessary? For example , in line 226-228, “the study assessed whether the special-needs schools sampled, have their gas registration with the local fire services and if electrical compliance certificates are available. A Chi-square test was conducted for the two variables and the results were significant.” What is this to illustrate?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The revisions are highlighted in green on the revised Manuscript in addition to the attached response report

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study, conducted a series of chi-squared  (χ2) tests to assess the state of fire safety management within the Northwest Province of South Africa by SPSS .The results shown that limited access to power is the potential root cause of fires in these schools; and also limited fire safety programs initiatives was  a problem. In addition， fire safety management was not sufficiently implemented in the sampled schools and the safety legislations of the country were not implemented accordingly when  it comes to fire safety. This study identified root causes of fire risks, gauged stakeholders' awareness  and involvement in fire safety management. Research has good innovation and engineering application value. The authors should revise the following points in order to better express the research results.

 

1)       As for section 4.1  fire root causes, why the authors select the economic systems and political systems? Please provide additional explanation. May be the root causes by  gas and electrical apparatus etc.

2)       Have the authors achieved the objective listed in section  3,  to explore existing school safety legislations and policies to manage fire safety risks  in Special Needs Schools in the Northwest Province?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

In addition to the attach response see the revised manuscript with the changes highlighted in yellow. Thank you for reviewing our manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for submitting the manuscript. I found it interesting, and the topic is important. However, the presentation of the methods and results needs improvement to make the manuscript publishable. I have marked several comments on the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is well readable and understandable, but read the text carefully and correct errors before re-submission.

Author Response

In addition to the attached revision document, See the revised manuscript with turquoise highlights

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My concerns for the manuscript are fully reflected in the revised paper and i agree to publish the revised manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors carefully revised paper according to the comments of reviewers. I recommend that this paper can be accepted

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language is required

Author Response

Thank you,The Manuscript will be sent for language editing

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for your response to my comments. You have made well the proposed improvements. One final thing is the reference to Lehna and Myer/Myers. In the text it is Lehna and Myer, but in the list of references Lehna and Myers. Check which one is correct and edit accordingly, please. This is a very minor revision, definitely not needing another review round.

Author Response

Thank you ever so much,

The reference for Lehna and Myer that appears twice in the text has been confirmed and has been revised in the text (Highlighted in purple on the revised Manuscript) to Lehna and Myers to reflect the correct authors. 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors carefully revised paper according to the comments of reviewers. I recommend that this paper can be accepted