Conceptual Framework for Hazards Management in the Surface Mining Industry—Application of Structural Equation Modeling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presents a conceptual framework with application of structural equation mod- 7 eling (SEM) method for improving safety in the surface mining industry. It has important guiding significance for personnel safety management in similar enterprises.
The following suggestions are proposed for this paper.
1. What is the basis for determining the nine influencing factors from 1.1 to 1.9? How to determine these nine influencing factors? It is recommended to explain this.
2. Is it necessary to consider the impact of the external environment?
3. It is recommended to propose corresponding control measures based on the results of the model analysis in the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the paper analyzes a topic of interest, there are several weaknesses that have to be addressed before its publication. They are discussed below.
The proposed model seems too linear and too narrow not going deep enough in the analysis. Consequently, it does not adequately take into account the complexity of the operational environment (there are new hazards and risks related to the complexity of operational environment and organizational and human performance) as well as the influence of biases in decision making (motivational and cognitive) leading to accidents. Safety culture/management role such as presented in the model do not capture it well in this new context.
Thus, the scope of analysis is too narrow. Such an approach often leads to putting the blame on frontline workers for deficiencies which are at the organizational level enabling and tolerating conditions creating unsafe workplaces (leading to the “drift to failure/accident”). The practice shows that these influences are “soft factors” that are hard to resolve, and may easily be hidden by apparent factors. Recent research works and return of experience show that the organizational performance and safety culture play a key role in creating conditions for accidents. The organizational performance also includes less studied motivational biases in decision-making process (mentioned above), and it is not considered either (cognitive biases are relatively well studied and understood).
Thus, the scope of the paper does not enable to capture the true image of the analyzed topic. Given the limited scope of the paper, the literature review is also too narrow, and it should be expanded to include aspects discussed above.
It is strongly recommended that the authors consult the following references while revising the paper.
Dekker S, Cilliers P, Hofmeyr, J.H., (2011), The complexity of failure: Implications of complexity theory for safety investigations. Safety Science. 49: 939-945
Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York: 2012
Komljenovic, D., Loiselle, G., Kumral, M., (2017), Organization: a new focus on mine safety improvement in a complex operational and business environment, International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 27: 617-625
Leveson N.G., (2011a), Engineering a Safer World, Systems Thinking Applied to Safety. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press
Leveson N.G., (2011b), Applying system thinking to analyze and learn from events. Safety Science, 49:55-64
Montibeller, G. and Winterfeldt, D. Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis, Risk Anal. 2015: 35 (7): 1230-1251
Mosey, D. Looking beyond operator – Putting people in the mix, NEI Magazine, 2014; http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurelooking-beyond-the-operator-4447549/
in collaboration with Ken Ellis, Managing Direction of World Association of Nuclear Power Operators (WANO)
http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featureputting-people-in-the-mix-4321534/
http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featureputting-people-in-the-mix-part-2-4322674/
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors present a conceptual framework with the application of the structural equation modelling (SEM) method to identify relationships between variables in the surface mining industry.
It is an interesting work and deserves to be published after correcting the following issues.
1- The introduction presents an interesting line of thought, but the first part (lines 27-40) should be strengthened.
2- Section 2.1 is not about methodology. It presents the hypotheses and the objectives. Thus, it should be at the end of the introduction section.
3- Table 2 - It is necessary to put a legend in the table and a caption in the 1st column.
4- It is not explained in the manuscript what is the meaning of each of the sub-parameters presented in the 1st column of Table 2.
5- line 181 - correct the number of the table.
6- In Figures 3, 4 and 5, the box boundary lines overlap, in some cases, the respective contents, making it difficult to read them.
7- It would be important to present the limitations of the study, as well as the needs for future work in the area.
8- The conclusions section should be improved
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper deals with a topical issue, respectively improving safety in the surface mining industry. In this study, a conceptual framework for managing workplace risks in the surface mining industry was designed by the authors and evaluated based on the most pertinent factors of the mine environment. This framework is suggested for evaluating workplace safety and identifying factors that need improvement in order to increase workplaces safety.
The topic addressed by the paper is relevant in the field, considering the novelty of the subject and the importance of the occupational health and safety issues.
The manuscript is clear and presented in a well-structured manner. The paper contains 5 figures and 6 tables which present the information in a clear way.
The conclusions are consistent with the presented evidence and arguments.
The paper contains 50 cited references which are relevant and appropriate and many of them are published within last 5 years.
Specific comments:
1) Row 9: consider replace “assessed” with “assess”;
2) Row 181: The number of the table should be 3 not 1.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors adequately addressed the comments.
Author Response
No comments or suggestions from Reviewer 2 in the second round for authors.
Reviewer 3 Report
In figures 3, 4 and 5 there is still an overlap between the references and the outlines of these references, making it difficult to read them.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
