Analysis of Factors Affecting Human Reliability in the Mining Process Design Using Fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title:  Analysis of factors affecting human reliability in the mining processes  designing using Fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL methods

This study aims to identify the most significant variables influencing surface mine designers’ performance using the Fuzzy Delphi method and investigate their cause-and-effect relationships using the Fuzzy DEMATEL method.  The results of the study revealed that the some variables were the major factors affecting human error as root causes.  The findings can help organizations, particularly surface mines, to opt for effective strategies to control factors affecting design errors and consequently provide a good basis for achieving sustainable development.  I think the authors have written an interesting paper, dealing with an important topic. I have, however, a few comments and suggestions for them.

Major Comments:

1.      Introduction and literature survey are inadequate. I would recommend briefly discussing in the introduction what is found in the paper, and how the findings contribute to the theory and practice, to provide a comprehensive view of what the reader will find in it.

2.      In the literature review, some of the references are outdated. The old references may be deleted. It is also suggested to add the latest frontiers of literature and analyze their main contributions as well as their value and usefulness for this study.

3.      The description of the method section seems a bit confusing, and the basic concepts and definitions of the method need to be clarified.

4.      Why particularly triangular fuzzy numbers are used to express the expert’s opinions?

5.      Please elaborate on the managerial insights of the present study in a distinct section. What practical implications and insights can this study give to companies?

6.      There is no conceptual comparison with existing approaches. Thus discussions and comparative analyses should be added, also it is important to compare your method with the literature ones.

7.      What guarantee do we have that the proposed method gives more effective results?

8.      A more specific description of future research directions should be extended in the last

9.      Conclusion section.Your method could be applied to many real-life decision-making problems such as the ‘Plastic ban problem’, 'Market share problem' etc. Include these into the future scope of the conclusion section by properly citing the references: https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22542; 10.22111/IJFS.2021.6262

Minor Comments:

10.  Citation of equations be like Equation (x) instead of Equation x.

11.  In Table 2 triangular fuzzy numbers should be written like (0,0, 0.25).

12.  Caption of figures should be Figure 1 ….. Sometimes it is written Diagram/Graph.

13.  Citation style of the references should be uniform and as per format of the journal.

14.  There are some punctuation issues. The paper needs to be double checked in this regard.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

we appreciate the constructive comments of the respected reviewer. The following are our point-by-point responses:

Point 1: Introduction and literature survey are inadequate(section1). I would recommend briefly discussing in the introduction what is found in the paper, and how the findings contribute to the theory and practice, to provide a comprehensive view of what the reader will find in it(section2).

Response 1(section1): This is an interesting perspective. we attempt to deal with this issue. The literature review was revised based on topic(mining accidents , design error and effective factors, and using Fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL methods).

Response 1(section2): This is another good point. It was explained at the end of introdution(lines111-125)

Point 2: In the literature review, some of the references are outdated. The old references may be deleted. It is also suggested to add the latest frontiers of literature and analyze their main contributions as well as their value and usefulness for this study.

Response 2: Thank you for this comment. Up-to-date references were replaced in this section

Point 3: The description of the method section seems a bit confusing, and the basic concepts and definitions of the method need to be clarified.

Response 3: : Thank you for this point. In the revision, This section was revised.

Point 4: Why particularly triangular fuzzy numbers are used to express the expert’s opinions?

Response 4: This is another good point. In the revision, it was explained in subsection 3.2.1(lines 185-191)

Point 5: Please elaborate on the managerial insights of the present study in a distinct section. What practical implications and insights can this study give to companies?

Response 5 Thank you once again for your valuable comments and suggestions. Based on this suggestion, We have added managerial insights to the end of discussion section(lines 450-459).

Point 6: There is no conceptual comparison with existing approaches. Thus discussions and comparative analyses should be added, also it is important to compare your method with the literature ones.

Response 6: Thanks for raising this important point. In the revision, we tried to deal with this issue. First, we focus more on the discussion of identifying and priorities of factors compared to past works. Second, we try to discuss similarities and dissimilarities. It was explained in section5. (lines 371-402)، .

 (lines 426-427), and (lines437-447)

Point 7: What guarantee do we have that the proposed method gives more effective results?

Response 7: Thank you for this question. It was explained in end of introduction(lines 95-110)

Point 8: A more specific description of future research directions should be extended in the last

Response 8:

It was done. Limitations of this study and need for further researches were revised. It was explained in section6(Conclusion and future research).

Point 9: Conclusion section.Your method could be applied to many real-life decision-making problems such as the ‘Plastic ban problem’, 'Market share problem' etc. Include these into the future scope of the conclusion section by properly citing the references: https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22542; 10.22111/IJFS.2021.6262

Response 9: Thank you for this point. It was done. References list was revised.

Minor Comments:

Point 10: Citation of equations be like Equation (x) instead of Equation x.

Response 10: Thank you for this point. It was done.

 Point 11: In Table 2 triangular fuzzy numbers should be written like (0,0, 0.25).

Response 11: Thank you for this point. It was done.

Point 12: Caption of figures should be Figure 1 ….. Sometimes it is written Diagram/Graph.

Response 12: Thank you for this point. It was done.

Point 13: Citation style of the references should be uniform and as per format of the journal.

Response 13: Thank you for this point. It was done base on journal format(the ACS style guid)

Point 14: There are some punctuation issues. The paper needs to be double checked in this regard

Response 15: Thank you for this suggestion.The full text of the article was revised by a professional editor

Again, we appreciate all your insightful comments. We worked hard to be responsive to them. Thank you for taking the time and energy to help us improve the paper

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper that integrates the Delphi technique with the MCDM method (DEMATEL). In my opinion, although this study could contribute something new to the academics, it still requires significant improvements in some parts, especially the contribution of study and literature review part.

The contribution of study is still weak. The novelty of work is not clearly presented (because it mainly lacks a comprehensive literature review). The study mainly aims to show the significance of design errors and human errors, but it is unclear why the work need to prioritize the factors and use Delphi technique and MCDM methods.

This work still lacks a comprehensive literature review in terms of both areas of applications (human reliability or mining process) and the development of methods (MCDM integrated methods).

There are several studies neglected in this work to highlight the past works as well as situations and significance of the study.

For example, to highlight the significance of MCDM methods to prioritize sustainability and intangible factors, some studies below must be added:

- Prioritizing critical success factors for sustainable energy sector in China: A DEMATEL approach, Energy Strategy Reviews, Vol. 35, May 2021, 100635

- Improving the Strategic Benchmarking of Intellectual Capital Management in Logistics Service Providers, Sustainability 12, no. 23: 10174.

- Using the best-worst method to develop intellectual capital indicators in financial service company, NCON 2022, Pages 81 - 86 

- Use of an analytic network process and monte carlo analysis in new product formula selection decisions, Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 32(2),1550007 

To show the past works related to the integration of Delphi and MCDM methods, some articles below must be also added:

- Using Delphi and fuzzy DEMATEL for analyzing the intertwined relationships of the barriers of university technology transfer: Evidence from a developing economy, International Journal of Innovation Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3,  2020, pp. 85-104

- Improving the intellectual capital management approach using the hybrid decision method, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp. 670 – 691.

In this work, the experts were asked to participate. There are too varied characteristics of experts. For example, The education level of experts ranges from the bachelor degree to doctoral degree. Why didn't the study require only high level of education or Phd? The supportive reasons must be added.

The discussion part mainly considers the results of the case study. Although it mentioned similar factors found in past works, the study should focus more on the discussion of priorities of factors compared to past works. Trying to discuss similarities and dissimilarities and find supportive reasons to explain the phenomena.

The implication of the study should be added.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

we appreciate the constructive comments of the respected reviewer. The following are our point-by-point responses:

Point 1: This is an interesting paper that integrates the Delphi technique with the MCDM method (DEMATEL). In my opinion, although this study could contribute something new to the academics, it still requires significant improvements in some parts, especially the contribution of study and literature review part.

Response 1(literature review part): This is an interesting perspective. we attempt to deal with this issue. The literature review was revised based on topic(mining accidents , design error and effective factors, and using Fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL methods).

Response 1(the contribution of study): This is another good point. It was explained at the end of introdution(lines113-123 )

 Further, this study contributes to the literature in several ways:

1)   To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies that investigated fac-tors predicting design errors and their interactions Thus, this study significantly contributes theoretically to existing literature and can to fill the existing gap in safety studies that address the role of latent errors on accidents.

2)  Proposed methodology of the present study provides visual cause and effect model, which helps in analyzing design errors. Mining managers and safety ex-perts can update their goals and plans based on the results of the study.

3)            As practical contribution, the study suggests strategic measures that may reduc-ing design errors to avoid accidents, besides presents evidence that helps the im-provement of health and safety at mines.

Point 2: The contribution of study is still weak(Section1).The novelty of work is not clearly presented(Section2) (because it mainly lacks a comprehensive literature review). The study mainly aims to show the significance of design errors and human errors, but it is unclear why the work need to prioritize the factors and use Delphi technique and MCDM methods(Section3).

Response 2: Thank you for all of your detailed comments and suggestions. The answer to this question is described in three sections.

Response 2(Section1) : It was explained at the end of introdution(lines113-123 )

Response 2 (Section2): It was explained at the end of introdution(lines109-112 )

 Response 2 (Section3): It was explained at the end of introdution(lines86-92 )

However, DE has been considered as the major causes of accidents in many organizations [32]. there are many variables that directly or indirectly affect DE and are indeed root causes of accidents. When a set of variables with complex relationships impact on a target variable, determining the most important variables requires extensive field studies that is time-consuming and costly; moreover, simultaneous control of all variables is not logical in safety policy

Point 3: This work still lacks a comprehensive literature review in terms of both areas of applications (human reliability or mining process) and the development of methods (MCDM integrated methods). For example, to highlight the significance of MCDM methods to prioritize sustainability and intangible factors, some studies below must be added:

- Prioritizing critical success factors for sustainable energy sector in China: A DEMATEL approach, Energy Strategy Reviews, Vol. 35, May 2021, 100635

- Improving the Strategic Benchmarking of Intellectual Capital Management in Logistics Service Providers, Sustainability 12, no. 23: 10174.

- Using the best-worst method to develop intellectual capital indicators in financial service company, NCON 2022, Pages 81 - 86

- Use of an analytic network process and monte carlo analysis in new product formula selection decisions, Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 32(2),1550007 

Response 3: Thanks for raising this important point. It was done(lines(25-30),(42-53),and(93-108) ).

Point 5: To show the past works related to the integration of Delphi and MCDM methods, some articles below must be also added:

- Using Delphi and fuzzy DEMATEL for analyzing the intertwined relationships of the barriers of university technology transfer: Evidence from a developing economy, International Journal of Innovation Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3,  2020, pp. 85-104

- Improving the intellectual capital management approach using the hybrid decision method, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp. 670 – 691.

 Response 4:Thank you for this valuable comment. It was done(lines93-108 ). References list was revised.

Point 6: In this work, the experts were asked to participate. There are too varied characteristics of experts. For example, The education level of experts ranges from the bachelor degree to doctoral degree. Why didn't the study require only high level of education or Phd? The supportive reasons must be added.

Response 6: This is an interesting perspective. It was explained in subsection3.2.2. ( lines192-200)

Point 7: The discussion part mainly considers the results of the case study. Although it mentioned similar factors found in past works, the study should focus more on the discussion of priorities of factors compared to past works. Trying to discuss similarities and dissimilarities and find supportive reasons to explain the phenomena.

Response 7: Thanks for raising this important point. In the revision, we tried to deal with this issue. First, we focus more on the discussion of identifying and priorities of factors compared to past works. Second, we try to discuss similarities and dissimilarities. It was explained in section5(lines371-402 and 436-447)

Point 8: The implication of the study should be added.

Response 8: Thank you for this valuable comment, It was explained in page in last part of discussion.

Result of this study has some managerial recommendations and can help the safety experts and mine managers to realize the root cause of design errors. Moreover, the study can help Legal organizations in the field of mining safety to understand the nature of ac-cidents and formulate strategic policies to implement Safe design rules in the mining sec-tor. Therefore, managers and safety experts with updated knowledge about behind of hu-man error can develop and implementation a health, safety and environment(HSE)plan that can help safe workplace for workers. Our finding indicates that Mining Industry should focus more on design processes to prevent rework, loss of time and reputation, re-ducing the social and environmental consequences of mining activities, and Additional costs such as direct and indirect costs of accident. 

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend the article for publication after revision. The main reasons for not recommending now are:

·       The article is very long and incomprehensible.

·       The added value of the article is not clear. What is its benefit? Demonstration of the method or improvement of the situation in the mines?

·       There is not a clear enough explanation for the difference between the two methods.

·       Most tables and graphs should be in annexes.

·       Graphs and tables are not quoted correctly.

·       The article contains a number of typographical and formatting errors.

·       Proofreading is suitable.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

we appreciate the constructive comments of the respected reviewer. The following are our point-by-point responses:

Point 1: The article is very long and incomprehensible.

 Response 1(The article is very long):  Thank you for this suggestion. In the revision, we attempted to limit the number of tables and figures(Table 5 was removed and Tables 3 and 6 Were located in in annexes).

Response 1(The article is incomprehensible): We agree with your assessment.

In the revised version, the following changes were made in order to enhancing our article.

-  The literature review was revised based on topic(mining accidents , design error and effective factors, and using Fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL methods).

- Up-to-date references were replaced

- the contribution of study are explained in the end of introduction section

- The method section was revised.

- Limitations of this study and need for further researches were revised.

- The full text of the article was revised by a professional editor

- We have added managerial insights to the end of discussion section.

- we focus more on the discussion of identifying and priorities of factors compared to past works. Second, we try to discuss similarities and dissimilarities

Point 2: The added value of the article is not clear. What is its benefit? Demonstration of the method or improvement of the situation in the mines?

Response 2: Thank you for this valuable comment, Based on this suggestion, we now include in our introduction and discussion sections.

It was done at the end of introduction(lines113-123)

 Further, this study contributes to the literature in several ways:

1)  To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies that investigated factors predicting design errors and their interactions Thus, this study significantly contributes theoretically to existing literature and can to fill the existing gap in safety studies that address the role of latent errors on accidents.

2)  Proposed methodology of the present study provides visual cause and effect model, which helps in analyzing design errors. Mining managers and safety ex-perts can update their goals and plans based on the results of the study.

3)  As practical contribution, the study suggests strategic measures that may reduc-ing design errors to avoid accidents, besides presents evidence that helps the improvement of health and safety at mines.

It was done at the end of discustion section():

Result of this study has some managerial recommendations and can help the safety experts and mine managers to realize the root cause of design errors. Moreover, the study can help Legal organizations in the field of mining safety to understand the nature of accidents and formulate strategic policies to implement Safe design rules in the mining sec-tor. Therefore, managers and safety experts with updated knowledge about behind of human error can develop and implementation a health, safety and environment(HSE)plan that can help safe workplace for workers. Our finding indicates that Mining Industry should focus more on design processes to prevent rework, loss of time and reputation, re-ducing the social and environmental consequences of mining activities, and Additional costs such as direct and indirect costs of accident. 

Point 3: There is not a clear enough explanation for the difference between the two methods.

Response 3: Thank you for this suggestion. In the revision, we attempted to describe differences between the two methods in lines 104-108

Point 4: Most tables and graphs should be in annexes.

Response 4: This is another good point. In the revision, Tables 3 and 6 Were located in annexes.

Point 5: Graphs and tables are not quoted correctly

Response 5: Thank you for this point. In the revision, it was done.

Point 6:  The article contains a number of typographical and formatting errors.

Response 6: Thanks for raising this important point, The whole text of the article was revised.

Point 7: · Proofreading is suitable.

Response 7: Thank you for this valuable comment, The manuscript was revised again by an experienced English language editor.

Reviewer 4 Report

see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer4  Comments

we appreciate the constructive comments of the respected reviewer. The following are our point-by-point responses:

Point 1: For the title, I think you should change it as Analysis of factors affecting human reliability

in mining process design using Fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL methods .

Response 1: Thank you! As you suggested, we have changed the title. new title is: “Analysis of factors affecting human reliability in mining process design using Fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL methods”

Point 2: For the introduction, you should clearly show the research gaps or limitations about

influencing factor analysis for human reliability in mining process design to motivate this study

Response 2: Thank you for this point. In the revision, It was explained in lines 65-94

Point 3: - Please discuss more about your future studies. For instance, it is common that experts use linguistic expressions in your problem. I think the authors should comment the use of linguisticinformation in your study by referring to Consensus reaching with non-cooperative behavior management for personalized individual semantics-based social network group decision

making; Consensus reaching for group decision making with multi-granular unbalanced

linguistic information: A bounded confidence and minimum adjustment-based approach

Response 3: Thank you for this direction. Limitations of this study and need for further researches were revised. References list was revised.

Point 4: - A literature review section is needed to discuss the state-of-the-art about your topic.

Response 4: This is an interesting perspective. we attempt to deal with this issue. The literature review was revised based on topic(mining , design error and effective factors, and using Fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL methods).

Point 5: At the end of the introduction section, pleas provide the outline of the rest of the paper

Response 5: Thank you for this suggestion. : It was added in the end of the introduction section(lines125-130)

Point 6: he equations should be well formatted. For instance, the notations should be italic in

section 2. Also, please check the format of the bibliographies.

 Response 6: Thank you for this point. In the revision, It was done.

 Response 6: Thank you for this point. It was done base on journal format(the ACS style guid)

Point 7: Please also further improve the language to avoid any typos and gramma mistakes.

Response 7: This is another great point. The manuscript was revised again by an experienced English language editor.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All of my comments have been properly responded. The quality of paper has now reached the acceptable level of Sustainability journal.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Again,Thank you for taking the time and energy to help us improve the paper.

 The paper has been carefully revised by a professional language editing service to improve the grammar and readability. 

Reviewer 3 Report

·       The title of the article is in the field of sustainable development, however, the content belongs more to the journal, which deals with methods of multi-criteria evaluation.

·       Both methods used are relatively old. The DEMATEL method (newer of them) dates back to the 1970s. Its application is not difficult and has been verified many times. The Delphi method was published in 1959, later extended by fuzzy variables. Both methods used make sense for the problem.

·       In the context of the given problem, it would be appropriate for the authors to compare their conclusions with the conclusions of other researches and focus more on sustainable development than on the application of relatively simple (but useful methods). This is indicated in the discussion, but it should be the main added value of the article. I suggest suppressing the description of the application of methods and, conversely, strengthening the factual part of the problem.

·       Given the nature of the DELPHI method and DEMATEL, I would recommend paying attention to the description of experts and their experience (at least 1 and 2 paragraphs). The number of experts is not significant (this is not a critique, this is the essence of the methods – a small number of expert), so the selection of experts is a crucial determinant of the results of the methods.

·       Citation of the original sources would be appropriate.

·       Graphic, typographic and linguistic processing is weak. The article contains a large number of typos, missing letters, missing spaces.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments(Round2)

we appreciate the constructive comments of the respected reviewer. The following are our point-by-point responses:

Point 1: Both methods used are relatively old. The DEMATEL method (newer of them) dates back to the 1970s. Its application is not difficult and has been verified many times. The Delphi method was published in 1959, later extended by fuzzy variables. Both methods used make sense for the problem.

Response1:Thank you for this point.You are absolutely right. As you said, these techniques have a long history. Due to their high efficiency in identifying and prioritizing effective factors and reducing uncertainties, especially in the field of safety, health and environment, they are still widely used. The research team, considering the objectives of the study and reviewing previous studies, decided to use a combination of these two methods.

Point 2: In the context of the given problem, it would be appropriate for the authors to compare their conclusions with the conclusions of other researches and focus more on sustainable development than on the application of relatively simple (but useful methods). This is indicated in the discussion, but it should be the main added value of the article. I suggest suppressing the description of the application of methods and, conversely, strengthening the factual part of the problem.

 Response 2: Thank you for this valuable comment, Based on this suggestion, in the revision, explanations regarding the description of the application of methods were suppressed and issues such as the importance of design errors in mines compared to other sectors from the perspective of sustainable development, the role of the present study in filling the theoretical gap in the factors affecting design errors and their prioritization in Mining Processes Design, and practical recommendations consistent with the results of the study for different levels of the organization, and its benefits for improving the situation in the mines were discussed. (p.14, lines 437-473  and p.15, lines504-507)

 Point3:  Given the nature of the DELPHI method and DEMATEL, I would recommend paying attention to the description of experts and their experience (at least 1 and 2 paragraphs). The number of experts is not significant (this is not a critique, this is the essence of the methods – a small number of expert), so the selection of experts is a crucial determinant of the results of the methods.

Response 3: Thank you once again for your valuable comments and suggestions. In the revision, We have added additional information on how to select experts and their experience in the form of a paragraph(p.5,lines 190-199).

Point 4: Citation of the original sources would be appropriate.

Response 4: Thank you for this point. It was done. References list was revised.

Point5: Graphic, typographic and linguistic processing is weak. The article contains a large number of typos, missing letters, missing spaces.

Response5:Thank you very much for your comments. We regret there were problems with the English. The paper has been carefully revised by a professional language editing service to improve the grammar and readability.The editorial certificate is uploaded with the revised manuscript. In addition, Tables and figures were revised. Figures 5 and 6 were redrawn(p.12).

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper has been revised and I recommend the acceptance of the paper.

Author Response

Again,Thank you for taking the time and energy to help us improve the paper.

 The paper has been carefully revised by a professional language editing service to improve the grammar and readability.