Occupational Safety and Health Improvements through Innovative Technologies in Underground Construction Sites: Main Trends and Some Case Histories

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This review paper is informative and show great interest to the readers. However, the authors should refine the manuscript to highlight the research gaps in particular for underground construction works. The included new technologies and reviewed papers were not mainly focused on underground construction sites. You need to illustrate the research significance of concluded results. 

Author Response

Dear Revisors,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and the efforts you dedicated reviewing our work in order to improve quality. We attach the revised release of the paper “Occupational Safety and Health improvements through innovative technologies in underground construction sites: main trends and some case histories”.

The new release was modified, using the Track Changes, according to the suggestions of the Revisors. In particular:

1. We reduced the number of References, focusing the work on underground, as suggested by Revisor 1. All references were revised according to Infrastructures format.
2. We modified the Abstract, improving its structure and highlighting the key contents. We also modified the use of numbering as suggested by Revisor 2.
3. We explained in more detail the search process in the section “Materials and Methods”. We illustrated it through Table 1, justifying more clearly the eligibility criteria (and the risk of bias) and providing readers a concise summary of the methods used. We illustrated the main innovations in TELT using Table 2 instead of bullet points, as suggested by Revisor 2.
4. We introduced the classification of the Results through Table 3, in order to summarise the content of the section and present the information in a more accessible format, as suggested by Revisor 2. Unfortunately, we could not modify the subheadings (in italic), according to the Infrastructures template:

3.1. Subsection

3.1.1. Subsubsection

5. We modified the Discussion, beginning this section by stating the research aim as reflected in the Abstract and in the Materials and Methods. We explained in more detail how the work was conducted and its relevance as suggested by Revisor 2.
6. We added the Limitation section in order to clearly illustrate study’s potential weaknesses.
7. We modified the Conclusion section, explaining in more detail the research significance and its contribute to the literature as suggested by Revisor 1 and Revisor 2.

We thank you for the suggestions and we hope the new release of the paper can result acceptable.

Sincerely, the Authors. 

Reviewer 2 Report

I commend the authors for undertaking this research. However, to ensure that the work meets the publication standards of the Infrastructures journal, I have some suggestions to improve the manuscript. Please find my comments outlined below:

Abstract:

·        The abstract would be more effective with improvements in both structure and content. To make it more informative, a well-written abstract should clearly highlight the key content areas, including a brief introduction, research purpose, methodology, the relevance of the work, and the main outcomes. Unfortunately, the current abstract does not clearly communicate these elements. Using numbering in an abstract is not recommended, as in lines 14-21. Therefore, I suggest the authors revise this section to align better with accepted abstract conventions.

Material and methods.

·        This section deserves a few additional paragraphs to explain the search process in more detail. As this is a bibliographic study, I recommend presenting the 'General eligibility criteria for published works' section in a table format on page 3, lines 112-119, instead of using bullet points. A table would provide readers with a clear and concise summary of the eligibility criteria, allowing them to grasp the information quickly. Additionally, please justify the eligibility criteria used in the study to enhance transparency and help readers understand the selection process better.

·        It is crucial to justify the method used on page 3, lines 119-125. Explaining the technique will help readers understand why it was the most appropriate approach for the study and increase transparency in the research process. Therefore, please briefly explain why the chosen method was the most suitable for this study.

·        I suggest presenting the section on page 7, lines 188-201, in a table format instead of using bullet points. A table format would give readers a more concise and organised summary of the major points, enabling them to comprehend the information more efficiently.

Result:

·        To improve clarity, I recommend that the authors begin this section with an introduction that summarises the content of the section, including the review and field tests and how it is structured.

·        As this is a bibliographical study, it's essential to present the results of the analysis clearly within the results section. Therefore, please consider using visual aids to help present the information in a more accessible format. Using tables, graphs, and figures where possible can enhance readers' comprehension of the bibliographical part.

·        The subheadings (in italics) within the results section are not prominent enough to draw readers' attention. For instance, subheadings like "3.1. Project phase – design innovations" and "3.2. Applications and potential of Industry 4.0" are difficult to identify. Also, the subheading on the field test result is in bold, which can overshadow the primary subheadings. To improve the clarity and readability of the results section, I recommend making the primary subheadings more prominent. This will make it easier for readers to navigate the section and identify the main themes at a glance.

Discussion

·        On page 15, lines 431-415, the authors begin their discussion section by stating their research aim. It is important to ensure that the research aim is clearly reflected in the abstract and material method section for consistency throughout the manuscript. Therefore, please review the abstract and material method section to ensure that the research aim is appropriately presented and aligned with the purpose stated in the discussion section.

·        To enhance the discussion section, I recommend that the authors consider providing a comparison and contrast of the current study's findings with those of previous studies. This would help to contextualise the findings and give the readers a better understanding of how the study contributes to the existing body of knowledge.

Limitation

·        On page 15, lines 449-457, I recommend that the authors consider adding a section dedicated to the study's limitations to give a more comprehensive understanding of the study's potential weaknesses.

Conclusions

·        Once the necessary corrections have been made in other sections, it would be beneficial for the authors to revise the conclusion section to offer a more balanced and nuanced assessment of the findings. Therefore, I strongly recommend that the authors allocate additional time and effort to revising the conclusion section to improve the quality of the manuscript.

General comment

 

The manuscript will benefit from professional proofreading.

Author Response

Dear Revisors,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and the efforts you dedicated reviewing our work in order to improve quality. We attach the revised release of the paper “Occupational Safety and Health improvements through innovative technologies in underground construction sites: main trends and some case histories”.

The new release was modified, using the Track Changes, according to the suggestions of the Revisors. In particular:

1. We reduced the number of References, focusing the work on underground, as suggested by Revisor 1. All references were revised according to Infrastructures format.
2. We modified the Abstract, improving its structure and highlighting the key contents. We also modified the use of numbering as suggested by Revisor 2.
3. We explained in more detail the search process in the section “Materials and Methods”. We illustrated it through Table 1, justifying more clearly the eligibility criteria (and the risk of bias) and providing readers a concise summary of the methods used. We illustrated the main innovations in TELT using Table 2 instead of bullet points, as suggested by Revisor 2.
4. We introduced the classification of the Results through Table 3, in order to summarise the content of the section and present the information in a more accessible format, as suggested by Revisor 2. Unfortunately, we could not modify the subheadings (in italic), according to the Infrastructures template:

3.1. Subsection

3.1.1. Subsubsection

5. We modified the Discussion, beginning this section by stating the research aim as reflected in the Abstract and in the Materials and Methods. We explained in more detail how the work was conducted and its relevance as suggested by Revisor 2.
6. We added the Limitation section in order to clearly illustrate study’s potential weaknesses.
7. We modified the Conclusion section, explaining in more detail the research significance and its contribute to the literature as suggested by Revisor 1 and Revisor 2.

We thank you for the suggestions and we hope the new release of the paper can result acceptable.

Sincerely, the Authors. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am pleased to see that the manuscript has improved with the changes made by the authors. My initial concerns have been adequately addressed, and I must say that the paper now flows smoothly and provides valuable information.