The Job Performance of Fly-In-Fly-Out Workers in Industrial Enterprises (on the Example of Oil and Gas Production, Diamond Mining Production, and Construction)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research is very interesting. The research method of the article is reasonable, the content is substantial, and it is recommended to accept.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and a positive attitude towards research!

A number of edits have been made to improve the quality of the article.
With gratitude and best wishes, the author

Reviewer 2 Report

General Comment Points

This manuscript reports on an interesting analysis. I applaud the aspirations represented in this paper. However, both formal and content aspects of the manuscript must be revised.

I hope the suggestions I give below will support you in advancing your research efforts on this topic. Following are my specific comments on this paper.

Title Review Points

The title captures the reader’s attention and clearly informs the reader about the contents of the article. However, the study does not analyze all industrial companies. The sample refers to a sector of industrial companies and in a specific context. The authors should specify this.

Abstract Review Points

The abstract describes the problem under investigation, the participants, method and basic findings. However, the authors have not included the importance of the topic and the gap in the scientific literature analyzing its study. The authors should improve the conclusions, implications and applications, too.

Introduction Review Points

1.      The authors present the literature on the fly-in-fly-out method very well. However, they should provide a solid basis on each component of job performance: the effectiveness of the activity, the psychophysiological "cost" of the activity and the way the tasks are performed.

2.      To increase clarity, the authors should present the hypotheses by numbering them and, together with this, justifying the reasons for them.

Method Review Points

1.      The authors analyze very specific companies. Therefore, the study cannot be extrapolated to all industrial companies as indicated in the title.

2.      Typology should be done, for example, with a cluster. If they have done so, the authors should describe it. If the typology is based on the criteria discussed by the authors, it should indicate the cut-off criteria and their theoretical basis.

3.      Statistical analyses have yet to be described. These are listed in the results. For the description of the analyses, the authors should indicate the objective of the study and the analysis used to achieve it.

4.      To describe the questionnaires, the authors should include their dimensions, the conceptualization of each dimension, an example of an item and its reliability. They should also indicate whether they are validated in the language used and for the particular population under study.

5.      The data analysis sub-section needs to be improved. It is not understood, for example, why the variables used to the cluster are used and not the three that we want to study job performance and that are indicated in the objective.

6.      The authors should check whether the industries participating in the study are named. I would not name them. I would only describe the number of companies, the general area where their headquarters are located (for example, in Spain) and the description of the sample would be made jointly for all the subjects that make up the sample. I think that the above description may have ethical problems and the authors should review the regulations carefully. Even so, I am not a specialist in this subject.

Results Review Points

1.      Information in this section is is brief. I suggest the authors to expand it (p.e. the results of the cluster should be described in more detail).

2.      It is not understood why only "cost of activity" is used to describe the sample. In addition, the explanation of the results should be improved.

3.      I also do not understand why qualitative description is mentioned and it is indicated that it is going to be done with an analysis of variance (it is quantitative).

4.      The results of statistical analyses require significant improvements in their reporting.

5.      In relation to the description of the quantitative scales, it is not necessary to indicate all the data for each item unless the authors deem it convenient in order to carry out some objective of the study. The authors should indicate in the instruments section whether the scales are single-factor or factorial and analyze them accordingly.

6.      The results sections should refer to the objectives of the study and end by indicating whether the hypothesis is accepted or rejected.

Discussion Review Points

1.      The discussion integrates the results with past published research and provides a clear explanation of the results, including their importance. The study should be structured on the basis of the hypotheses of the study.

2.      New results cannot be presented in the discussion and the authors should check whether tables can be introduced.

3.      The authors should improve the section on limitations, contributions of their study and its theoretical and practical application.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and a positive attitude towards research!

All comments have been corrected.

All significant changes in the text of the article are highlighted in red.

 

 

Title Review Points

The title captures the reader’s attention and clearly informs the reader about the contents of the article. However, the study does not analyze all industrial companies. The sample refers to a sector of industrial companies and in a specific context. The authors should specify this.

Changed to: The job performance of fly-in-fly-out workers in industrial enterprises (on the example of oil and gas production, diamond mining production and construction)

Abstract Review Points

The abstract describes the problem under investigation, the participants, method and basic findings. However, the authors have not included the importance of the topic and the gap in the scientific literature analyzing its study. The authors should improve the conclusions, implications and applications, too.

Added and corrected

Introduction Review Points

1. The authors present the literature on the fly-in-fly-out method very well. However, they should provide a solid basis on each component of job performance: the effectiveness of the activity, the psychophysiological "cost" of the activity and the way the tasks are performed.

The text has been restructured and this information has been added to the introduction.

2. To increase clarity, the authors should present the hypotheses by numbering them and, together with this, justifying the reasons for them.

The study highlighted one general hypothesis. And there is an explanation for it. This description is highlighted in the text. Added private hypotheses for each step of the study.

 

Method Review Points

1. The authors analyze very specific companies. Therefore, the study cannot be extrapolated to all industrial companies as indicated in the title.

Title changed

2. Typology should be done, for example, with a cluster. If they have done so, the authors should describe it. If the typology is based on the criteria discussed by the authors, it should indicate the cut-off criteria and their theoretical basis.

The typology is built empirically by means of two-stage cluster analyses, with the rationale for criteria and indicators for clustering set out in the procedure section.

3. Statistical analyses have yet to be described. These are listed in the results. For the description of the analyses, the authors should indicate the objective of the study and the analysis used to achieve it.

Additions have been made to The stages of developing the job performance typology of fly-in-fly-out workers at industrial enterprises - it is indicated which statistical methods are applied at each of the stages.

4. To describe the questionnaires, the authors should include their dimensions, the conceptualization of each dimension, an example of an item and its reliability. They should also indicate whether they are validated in the language used and for the particular population under study.

Added descriptions.

5. The data analysis sub-section needs to be improved. It is not understood, for example, why the variables used to the cluster are used and not the three that we want to study job performance and that are indicated in the objective.

Added: Fig. 2 shows which indicators were evaluated for each of the three components of job performance. Using static procedures, the entire sample was divided into groups according to the severity of indicators (two -stage cluster analysis), then using MANOVA was carried out which indicators made a greater contribution to the differences in the groups. Therefore, it is enough to evaluate them in order to determine the group for each of the components in the future. Initially, they tried to evaluate the largest number of different indicators of each of the components of job performance.

6. The authors should check whether the industries participating in the study are named. I would not name them. I would only describe the number of companies, the general area where their headquarters are located (for example, in Spain) and the description of the sample would be made jointly for all the subjects that make up the sample. I think that the above description may have ethical problems and the authors should review the regulations carefully. Even so, I am not a specialist in this subject.

The description of the samples is preserved, because it currently shows which industries, their regions and the number of participants. This is important for interpreting the results obtained.

 

Results Review Points

1. Information in this section is is brief. I suggest the authors to expand it (p.e. the results of the cluster should be described in more detail).

Due to the fact that for the interpretation of each of the clusters, MANOVA and the presented descriptive statistics for all indicators were carried out, after each table only the main conclusion was included, which concerned each of the particular hypotheses. This is done so as not to overload the article. Cluster analyzes were intermediate stages for the possibility of developing a typology, so the main focus in the discussion of the results was on it. Because other reviewers indicated possible abbreviations of the article, did not significantly expand these descriptions.

2. It is not understood why only "cost of activity" is used to describe the sample. In addition, the explanation of the results should be improved.

If we are talking about comparing the types of professional effectiveness and the length of service and age of employees, then the developed typology prompted this assumption that there may be a connection. Because The choice of a way to solve problems and professional effectiveness are influenced by many other factors, such as motivation. And due to the fact that the hypothesis was confirmed, we considered it interesting to add this. A private hypothesis about this was added to the introduction.

3. I also do not understand why qualitative description is mentioned and it is indicated that it is going to be done with an analysis of variance (it is quantitative).

In this case, under the qualitative description, it was supposed to describe how the division was made, what indicators played a large role in distinguishing between clusters. Therefore, the term quality is used, i.e. meaningful description.

4. The results of statistical analyses require significant improvements in their reporting.

Steps and explanations regarding the use of each method have been added.

5. In relation to the description of the quantitative scales, it is not necessary to indicate all the data for each item unless the authors deem it convenient in order to carry out some objective of the study. The authors should indicate in the instruments section whether the scales are single-factor or factorial and analyze them accordingly.

All scales in the tables are one-factor, except for three scales according to the WAM method. Because Since a large variety of evaluation criteria were included, full tables were included to show which criteria have the largest differences between clusters.

6. The results sections should refer to the objectives of the study and end by indicating whether the hypothesis is accepted or rejected.

Added

Discussion Review Points

1. The discussion integrates the results with past published research and provides a clear explanation of the results, including their importance. The study should be structured on the basis of the hypotheses of the study.

Corrected and detailed hypotheses, improved the logic of discussion of the results.

2. New results cannot be presented in the discussion and the authors should check whether tables can be introduced.

The table shows the areas of work by personnel for each type of job performance in a clear and concise form. It does not contain new information.

3. The authors should improve the section on limitations, contributions of their study and its theoretical and practical application.

Added: This study limitations are related to the possibility of their distribution to FIFO workers in the oil and gas, diamond and construction industries, while the FIFO method can be applied in other areas with different specifics. The expansion of the data obtained by applying this design to industrial sites in other countries, considering national specificities. The research limitation is also the set of indicators for each job performance components and methods for their assessment, which can be refined in future studies.

 

Best regards and with gratitude, the author

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review report -  Journal Safety  - The job performance of fly-in-fly-out workers in industrial enterprises

 

General comments

I would like to thank you for your work in article.

 

Detailed comments

The study is very extensive.

Did the author properly consider, without co-authorship of other colleagues, when stating the research objective and hypotheses in the study?

Do I recommend that the author reconsider the possibility of publishing the mentioned text in a monograph or shorten the article?

 

I recommend to author

Do not mention in lines 8, 10, 15 and 22 in the abstract (1) Background:   (2) Methods:

 (3) Results: and  (4) Conclusions:

 

I recommend writing the abstract in a continuous text.

I recommend the author to significantly shorten 1. Introduction

The template for writing an article from the editor does not include chapter 2. Theoretical substantiation of the job performance model of fly-in-fly-out personnel in industrial enterprises

Recommended to link with 1. Introduction

 

Next I recommend to the author

Line 41 change ...... [1, p. 2], in the template for writing the article, the editor states [1] (p. 2),

Line 163 The research purpose and line 166 Hypothesis.

in the template for writing an article, the editor does not recommend writing in Bold.

Next, the editor recommends chapter 2 Material and Methods

Renumber the chapter and erroneous subsections

Line 245 incorrect numbering of subsection 4.1 Sample

Line 288    4.2. Procedure

Line 367    4.2. Methods

Line 432    4.3 Data analysis

Line 459     4 Results correct 3 Results

Line 460 .... 4.1 Classification of employees into groups depending on effectiveness as a job performance 460 component.

Lines 485,486  4.2. Classification of employees into groups depending on the parameters of the psychophysiological 485 "cost of activity" as a job performance component.

Line 519    4.3. Classification of employees into groups depending on the parameters of the way of performing tasks as a job performance component.

Line 560     4.4. Development of the job performance typology of fly-in-fly-out workers.

Line 611, 612 4.5. Relationship between job performance types with the fly-in-fly-out work experience and age 611 characteristics of employees in industrial enterprises.

 

Please write correct decimal numbers in all tables and pictures. Not 21,4%, it is correct to state 21.4%.

Line 279 Figure 1. Distribution of research samples by levels of differential analysis from FIFO work

Line 477 Table 2. - Effectiveness indicators of the employees from two clusters.

You are entering incorrect decimal numbers

 

8,9±1,32

7,4±1,60

7,7±2,02

0,052

Edit correctly

8.9±1.32

7.4±1.60

7.7±2.02

0.052

 

Edit next the table

Line 508 Table 3. - Indicators of the psychophysiological "cost of activity" of employees from two clusters.

Line 539 Table 4. - Indicators of the way the employees from two clusters perform tasks.

Line 565 Figure 3. Job performance typology of fly-in-fly-out workers

 

Table 1. is given in the description.

Table 1. is not written. -

please remove all "-"

 

Line 659 6. Discussion correct 4. Discussion

Line 772 is correctly stated 5. Conclusions

 

Summarizing:

1.      Introduction

2.      Material and Methods

3.      Results

4.      Discussion

5.      Concusions

6.      Patents

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and a positive attitude towards research!

All comments have been corrected.

All significant changes in the text of the article are marked in red.

1. Did the author properly consider, without co-authorship of other colleagues, when stating the research objective and hypotheses in the study? This study is a long-term postdoctoral study carried out by the author of the article without the additional participation of other colleagues.

2. Do I recommend that the author reconsider the possibility of publishing the mentioned text in a monograph or shorten the article? The article has been shortened and revised taking into account the wishes and recommendations of all reviewers.

3. Do not mention in lines 8, 10, 15 and 22 in the abstract (1) Background:   (2) Methods:  (3) Results: and  (4) Conclusions: - Corrected

4. I recommend the author to significantly shorten 1. Introduction

   The template for writing an article from the editor does not include chapter 2. Theoretical substantiation of the job performance model of fly-in-fly-out personnel in industrial enterprises Recommended to link with 1. Introduction - Corrected, merged

5. Line 41 change ...... [1, p. 2], in the template for writing the article, the editor states [1] (p. 2), - Corrected

6. Line 163 The research purpose and line 166 Hypothesis.

   in the template for writing an article, the editor does not recommend writing in Bold. - Corrected

7. Next, the editor recommends chapter 2 Material and Methods

   Renumber the chapter and erroneous subsections - Corrected

8. Please write correct decimal numbers in all tables and pictures. Not 21,4%, it is correct to state 21.4%.

   Line 279 Figure 1. Distribution of research samples by levels of differential analysis from FIFO work

   Line 477 Table 2. - Effectiveness indicators of the employees from two clusters. - Corrected

9. Table 1. is given in the description.

   Table 1. is not written. -

   please remove all "-" Corrected

10. Summarizing:

    1. Introduction
    2. Material and Methods
    3. Results
    4. Discussion
    5.      Concusions Corrected
11. Best regards and with gratitude, the author

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The authors have made a great effort and their paper has improved. Congratulations. However, I think it would be much better if they improved some issues.

Results Review Points

1.      The results of the cluster should be described in more detail.

2.      I'm sorry but I still don't understood why only "cost of activity" is used to describe the sample.

3.      I'm sorry but I still don't understand why qualitative description is mentioned and it is indicated that it is going to be done with an analysis of variance (it is quantitative).

4.      The results of statistical analyses need to be improved in their presentation yet.

5.      The authors should structure the results sections according to the hypotheses and end by indicating whether the hypothesis is accepted or rejected in each section.

Discussion and Conclusions Review Points

1.      The authors should include theoretical and practical applications.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and a positive attitude towards research!

All comments have been corrected.

All significant changes in the text of the article are highlighted in red.

 

 

Results Review Points

 

1. The results of the cluster should be described in more detail.

Added extended interpretations, marked in red.

2. I'm sorry but I still don't understood why only "cost of activity" is used to describe the sample.

In the discussion of the results, additional clarifications were made regarding those phenomena that have an explanation based on the available scientific data. Greater emphasis is placed on the analysis of groups with different psychophysiological "cost of activity" in order to attract the attention of managers and scientists to the problems of maintaining the health of fly-in-fly-out workers at industrial enterprises and greater implementation of preventive measures for employees with a long FIFO work experience, which, due to the high psychophysiological "cost of activity" strive to achieve the highest possible results of work.

3. I'm sorry but I still don't understand why qualitative description is mentioned and it is indicated that it is going to be done with an analysis of variance (it is quantitative).

Changes have been made in all three descriptions to:

To identify significant differences in effectiveness parameters among representa-tives of the two previously identified clusters

4. The results of statistical analyses need to be improved in their presentation yet.

Added, marked in red.

5. The authors should structure the results sections according to the hypotheses and end by indicating whether the hypothesis is accepted or rejected in each section.

Additions are made after each section of the test of the corresponding hypothesis, marked in red.

Discussion and Conclusions Review Points

 

1. The authors should include theoretical and practical applications.

Practical applications are highlighted and theoretical significance is added.

 

Best regards and with gratitude, the author

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks to the author for editing the article. Specific modifications are listed in the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your technical comments. Appropriate spaces have been added and unnecessary spaces have been removed.
Best regards and gratitude, the author

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I congratulate the authors for their article.

Reviewer 3 Report

After the third review, I have no comments on the text of the article.