Review of Management Comprehensiveness on Occupational Health and Safety for PPP Transportation Projects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Is the title of the article consistent with the written text?
The title of the article must be clear, succinct, compatible with the content of the work, reflecting a pleasant reading proposal. We found that the title description does not show this compatibility throughout the text, requiring a readjustment to express methodology and results in the title.

Does the abstract present the objective of the work? Is it written clearly and coherently?
The abstract presents the number of words within the limit previously established by the journal's rules. We found the absence of effective and concise contextualization of the problem studied by the article, right at the beginning of the abstract. In addition, we noted the lack of detailed methodological procedures (data collection, analysis and interpretation). Another point, we found the effective lack of description of the effective results achieved by the study. Finally, we found the absence of a proposal to contribute to the study in the field of knowledge under study.

Does the introduction present the research questions and/or objectives of the work clearly and explicitly?
We note the absence of organizational structure, in clear and coherent subdivisions for a fluid and structurally organized text. We note the absence of references (only 3 references presented), mainly recent references (from the last 5 years of publication). We found that the author(s) need to justifiably discuss what has been observed in the literature regarding the presented theme, addressing a problematized context in the study area.

Does the text have a structure compatible with a scientific document?
We found that the text has an organized structure in subheadings and internal divisions that reflect a scientific document.

Is the reading fluid and pleasant?
We found that the text has a fluid and pleasant reading to be understood in the scientific circles to which the document is proposed.

Is the text well grounded theoretically and conceptually? Does the literature review reflect the current state of knowledge in the area?
We found the absence of a bibliographic review/structured foundation in references, mainly recent references (from the last 5 years of publication). We found the absence of technical details already referenced/published in the study area on what has been observed in the literature on the subject, addressing a problematized context in the area. It is suggested that a literature review be carried out, using research bases, seeking what is defended in the latest articles on the presented topic.

Is the methodological design clearly described, allowing the reader to understand what the authors did to arrive at the results presented?
It is not necessary for the authors to refer again to the objective of the work, according to lines 76, 77, 78 and 79, in the materials and methods section.
Take care of the inadequate spacing in the “Table 2-Questionnaire items and SPSS output”. We noted the presence of a methodological design in the article. We note the presence of robust writing of material and methods in other parts of the article. However, there is a need for visual clarity regarding the sequence of steps that were carried out, and a flowchart can be used for visual organization, and the time period (cut) in which the data were taken/collected/analyzed. It is suggested that the author(s) carry out the restructuring of the methodology stage of the article, expressing the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, including an eventual validation of these data in the context of the results.

Are the results adequately presented and compared with the literature?
The discussion of the results needs to be expanded, discussing more comparatively with other studies already published in the area. Even though the article is extremely relevant, there is a lack of comparative data with other similar experiments.
In figures 2 to 14, it is not possible to know which are the actual numerical results obtained in the constructed graphs. The scales are not standardized and the columns do not show the results obtained.

Are the conclusions consistent with the procedures and results presented in the text? Does the text bring original and significant contributions to the area of ​​knowledge?
It is essential that the authors point to the following aspects to be presented in the conclusion: brief summary of the topic and what was analyzed in the development of the research; explain the importance of the topic, its relevance to the academic environment, to society in general in the context of established partnerships; present the results and general conclusion of your research; demonstrate if the objectives proposed in the introductory section have been completed, if the questions and problems initially presented have been answered and/or clarified; to present suggestions for the future evolution of research on the subject.

Is the formatting of the references in accordance with the journal's rules?
References are sufficient, as they characterize or support the work carried out consistently and robustly. There are significant references in the introduction part. These are high-impact articles published in specialized journals to support comparative data for analysis and interpretation of results.

Overview. The authors presented a critical evaluation of the specialized literature, using simple language and without ambiguous terms. The authors could have presented a qualitative synthesis, evaluating the historical validity of the articles reviewed and which supported the discussion and validation of the results. The work, in the results part, was not structured in sections with a logical order. It should integrate the information and critically discuss the similarities and discrepancies of peer-reviewed publications, comment on the limitations of your review, conclude with valid data based on the work reviewed, and provide specific guidance for further research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments.

You could find in the attached file our response for the revised sessions to fulfill your comments.

It is noted that the revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in MS Word, such that any changes can be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers. The revised version has been uploaded in the MDPI system, as requested.

Kind regards

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors:

The research identifies a number of management factors and their effect on safety in PPP projects, including sustainability and the impact of top management commitment on the conditions of subcontractors. This has been analyzed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and also with the application of sanctions and/or rewards, but according to the research, these are not measures that generate a positive aspect for safety and health.

The paper is interesting, but there are different aspects that need to be improved:

1. There is no specific section on background, but it is understood that the authors have tried to include it in the introduction. The review is insufficient, since, as indicated in points 2 and 3, it does not establish the current situation of the problem. The background needs to be improved.
2. When the authors in the introduction 'Therefore, PPPs agreement leverage capitals from the private sector and share the business risks between the involved parties. Identifying the reasons for PPP contracts in the transport sector, three key factors can be summarized: (a) the financing conditions and the availability of the capital for the financing the projects; (b) the agreement on performance management, governance, and productivity of the investment; and (c) the sharing mechanism of business incentives and risks [2]. Uses a reference from 2008. It is recommended that more current references be used.
3. This is also the case with the statements in lines 40-44. It should be supported by more current references.
4. Although line 56-59 states the main objective of the research, the statements mentioned in line 59-74 are not supported by any references. You should revise it and I advise you to separate the paragraphs where you mention the literature review, materials, methods, discussion, and conclusions.
5. In the model you present in figure 1, there may be relationships between the different factors. It is recommended that you review the model and its causal relationships, as you subsequently analyze the correlation of variables.
6. In line 143 you allude to the literature, but do not indicate any.
7. The variables in table 1 are based on the literature, but there is none.
8. In the introduction it says that the personnel who participated in the research belong to the top management and middle management, however, in table 3 the workers appear. This should be clarified.
9. The authors have used spss software for statistical calculations. This should be indicated in the methodology in the first place and the databases should be provided as supplementary material in order to be able to replicate the analyses shown in the research.
10. In the references, there are 13 self-citations out of 40. I consider this number to be excessive.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments.

You could find in the attached file our response for the revised sessions to fulfill your comments.

It is noted that the revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in MS Word, such that any changes can be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers. The revised version has been uploaded in the MDPI system, as requested.

Kind regards

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents the results of a very interesting survey that investigates perceptions regarding key factors affecting Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) performance in PPP/Concession projects. However, I would reccomend authors to carry out a thorough revision in order to make it more consistent, improve its structure and content but also the quality of english language.

Special attention should be given in improving the following:

• Introduction Section. Explain better and justify the backround of the problem. For exapmle explain the extent of problematic case presented in the lines 45-55. Has it been identified by other studies too? Present and justify the research question. A large part of the introduction (lines 56-74) is repeated in section 2. 
• Literature review section is missing. Please relevant literature (e.g. regarding key factors influencing OHS as you mention in line 79) and highlight your contribution.
• Method and presentation of results. I would recommend revising this section and avoid presenting histograms for each one of the questions. The structure of the section must be substantially improved. Please be sure that information and arguments are not repeated in your text. The correlation analysis should be part of the survey analysis. 
• The discussion section should include a critical review of the results,
  proposal of alternatives if other assumptions had been
  considered, comparison with similar results in the literature, etc. 
• Many articles presented in the references sections are not mentioned in the main text. It is unclear how they have been used.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments.

You could find in the attached file our response for the revised sessions to fulfill your comments.

It is noted that the revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in MS Word, such that any changes can be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers. The revised version has been uploaded in the MDPI system, as requested.

Kind regards

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The purpose of this article was to conduct a comprehensive study of several management factors along with their impact on the level of security in PPP (Public-Private Partnerships) / Concession projects.

Management factors such as the customization of the contracting agreements with the subcontractors, the analysis of the occupational health and safety conditions in the design phase of the project, the clear definition of roles and responsibilities on site, but also the commitment to occupational health and safety from the top management of the company constitute direct contributing aspects that support the achievement of a high safety performance level. 

It was also noted that the collective effort of the parties involved in the axes described in this paper and presented as safety management factors can positively contribute to the long-term improvement of working conditions on the construction site. Consequently, occupational health and safety in the Concession Projects/PPP can contribute to the sustainability of the projects, in the framework of the workers/personnel and their personal environment well being. Also taking into account the experience around the world where technical projects may have a structure other than Concessions / PPP, specialist knowledge is developed to create the necessary management tools to overcome obstacles and deviations from high safety standards. The analysis provides a detailed structure of a survey to identify the level of comprehensives of OHS for PPPs transport infrastructure. The durability of these projects was directly related to the conditions facing the personnel working for their construction and maintenance.

On the other hand, the analysis could be extended to include the lower level of hierarchy, i.e. the workers in a construction / maintenance site. Their point of view could be very useful in the investigation of the causes of a bad safety performance.

Summing up, the whole paper is clear, well-presented and fully understandable. Figures and Tables included in the paper are well prepared. There is also a direct relationship between the title and the paper. The entire text constitutes a well-written and very interesting contribution for MPDI. I have no substantive comments and I appreciate the study. I wish the authors good luck and further success in their research. Further research could be interesting to investigate the specific topic under completely different legislative and attitude conditions. It would be interesting to see whether different safety attitudes correlate or not with a multicultural environment.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments.

You could find in the attached file our response for the revised sessions to fulfill your comments.

It is noted that the revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in MS Word, such that any changes can be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers. The revised version has been uploaded in the MDPI system, as requested.

Kind regards

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your reply, but at any moment I have not suggested changing the title of the manuscript. Nor have I suggested changing the abstract.

Regarding the various points I made in the previous review, I would have liked you to reply to each one individually and locate them in the new manuscript. 

1. The introduction has not substantially improved the background.
2. The variables in table 1 continue to have no reference.
3. Figure 1 has changed the title but has not considered the relationships between the different factors. Nor has it provided an explanation for this point of the revision.
4. In the new version, there are still 13 self-citations out of the 30 used. In the previous review, you indicated that they seemed excessive and you have replied that this is the result of previous research, which is reasonable, although I still indicate that I consider them to be excessive.

Kind regards.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please find attached our response.

We would like to acknowledge once again the valuable comments from your review, and we would like to appreciate you for the essential contribution to the paper improvement.

Kind regards

Authors # 1673701 manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have incorporated most of the suggested changes and the quality of the paper has been improved.

I would recommend to separate the introduction and literature review sections, in order the structure to be further improved.

Similarly, a discussion section should be added to include a critical review of the results, comparison with similar results in the literature, etc.

I would also recommend to better explain in the literature review section the contribution of their past relevant work (ref. 1, 3-9, 12-14, 21, 22). This would be done e.g. by highlighting specific relevant results, work or ideas presented in these papers.

Finally, as mentioned in my first report, I think that presention of histograms is not necessary for all the questions. The length of the paper could be reduced without affecting its value.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 You could find attached all the revised sessions and materials to fulfill the reviewer’s comments.

It is noted that the revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in MS Word, such that any changes can be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers. The revised version has been uploaded in the MDPI system, as requested.

We would like to acknowledge once again your valuable comments and we would like to appreciate you for the essential contribution to the paper improvement.

Kind regards

Authors # 1673701 manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,
Thank you for incorporating the suggestions into the manuscript.
Kind regards