The Prevention of Industrial Manual Tool Accidents Considering Occupational Health and Safety
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper conducts research on occupational safety and health protection from the perspective of accidents caused by tool use, with novel perspectives and strong innovation. At the same time, the guidance of safety work is of great significance. Specific suggestions for the paper are as follows:
1. The data for 2015 in Table 1 is earlier, and it is recommended to update the data using the data from the past two years;
2. 2.3 Way of handling the tool, from the perspective of the tool itself, combined with ergonomics, it is recommended to increase research on the intrinsic safety part of the tool;
3. Figure 9 suggests changing the format to be more aesthetically pleasing;
4. References should not appear in the conclusion
Author Response
Please find my answer in the uploaded file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is focused on project model, developing an interesting integrated approach to safety and risk assessment using decision making approach.
The approach is well explained and the example allows readers to understand the whole problem, and also to replicate it.
Despite the paper is well presented and structured, I suggest introducing the main results in the abstract in brief, so that it is possible to have an idea about the overall ones.
Moreover, the introduction, in the presented form, is quite negligible. I suggest restructuring it explaining in-depth the maintenance problem.
The English form has to be revised for the presence of some typos. The literature review appears not completely updated. Some latest results on safety and risk assessment using decision making approach can be found in:
- Integrated hazards method (IHM): A new safety allocation technique
Falcone, D., Di Bona, G., Duraccio, V., Silvestri, A. , Validation and application of a reliability allocation technique (advanced integrated factors method) to an industrial system Falcone, D., De Felice, F., Di Bona, G.P., ...Forcina, A., Silvestri, A. ,good
Author Response
Please find my answer in the uploaded file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well written but I have a few comments which could improve it:
a) Table 1, with data from US 2015, could be updated with most recent data
b)Table 2 has no references. Causes of accidents could be described in more detail
c) I think that section 2.3 could be reduced\
d) Section 2.4 should be described in more detail. Table 8, Results in Table 9 should be explained. What is λmax , N in eq. (3) and n in eq. (4). Explain better what are the results of AHP in this section and what does CI and RCI express
e) What is equation 6, provide references and more details, what is the risk level s*, risk of injury? fatality? How are the balues Ha, Hγ calculated?
f) Delete reference [45] from the conclusions. Usually we don't write references in the conclusions. What is "direct risk" you refer to in the third paragraph of the conclusions?
Author Response
Please find my answer in the uploaded file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The study is well structured and thought out, referring to the adopted research problem.
However, in my opinion it would be reasonable to improve the importance of ergonomic requirements. The paper refers to ergonomic requirements, and the authors assign a significant role to safety requirements (e.g. in the title, in the text, a greater role is attributed to ergonomic criteria). Usually these are not the same requirements.
It would be necessary to indicate what is the correlation between them in this case. For example, it may be an output requirement. Please consider changing the title of the study.
Also: The guidelines of the OHSAS 18001 standard should be supplemented with the specificity of ISO 45001. The indicated link, taking into account the importance of the requirements, is insufficient when referring to the presented problem.
The selection of tools covered by a detailed assessment can be treated as poorly thought out (unjustified).
The selection of the bibliography seems to be well thought out. However, there may be doubts about the selection of some sources, eg [14]. In my opinion, this is a reference to a slightly different problem.
On line 172 there should be ISO 691, is ISO 901.
The discussion should be closely related to the obtained results.
The work is interesting, it can be published after minor improvements.
Author Response
Thank you for your contribution. Please take a look at the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has made modifications to the issues and suggests accepting and publishing the paper.
Author Response
Thank you for your contribution and the acceptance of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
paper is ok
good
Author Response
Thank you for your contribution and the acceptance of the manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
After introducing the corrections, I propose to accept the paper for publication.
