Antecedents of Safety and Health in the Workplace: Sustainable Approaches to Welding Operations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Previous research lacks insights specific to welding safety. This study used surveys and analysis to identify key factors impacting safety, including harmful exposure, employee and management attitudes, safety culture, and programs. This benefits both businesses and employees by enhancing safety understanding and commitment.
I believe this article is worthy of publication. Here are some minor revision suggestions:
1. Page 2: Several studies have explored the different factors that contribute to the occupational safety and health of workers. In the study of Li et. al. which proposed a comprehensive evaluation methodology for the occupational health risk system, the authors cited high temperature, noise, and dust as occupational health factors: I believe the discussion in this section lacks sufficient specificity, and the author should provide more detailed explanations at this juncture.
2. The formatting of tables in the current article does not align with the journal's requirements, and there is still room for improvement in the visual appeal of the images.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor,
I would like to thank the authors of the manuscript ID Sustainability-2585961 entitled “Enhancing Occupational Safety and Health: Sustainable Approaches to Welding Operations” for presenting the results of their study on assessing the workers’ perception of safety and health factors in the welding industry in Singapore.
The manuscript presents the results of a cross section study based on data from 309 workers involved in welding industries based in Singapore. Authors performed literature analysis and created 11 hypotheses concerning health and safety in the welding industry in Singapore. After that, they created a 45 item survey, including questions on demographics, presence and exposure to harmful substances, safety training, reward system, employee attitude, top management attitude, safety culture, safety program, reliable equipment and machine, and compliance to safe working condition. Survey was distributed by Google? (mail, docs,?), with apparently 100% response rate. Authors then used a variance-based partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation to test the model.
The results showed that based on the perception of workers in Singapore directly involved in welding process, the following factors have a direct effect in a workplace safety and health: presence and exposure to harmful agents, employees’ attitude towards safety, top management attitude towards safety, safety culture, compliance to safe working conditions, and safety programs. This can be used in improving the initiatives and programs of the welding industry.
After reading this article in details, my main impression is that the article is well written, in adherence to Journal’s standards, and addresses a very important issue of occupational health and safety issues in the welding industry. Occupational hazards of welding are very well known, as well as risks of injuries at work and occupational diseases in welders. This branch of industry is still growing with introduction of new materials and technologies, and the demands presented to welders are also on the rise, so there is a strong need for good occupational health and safety guidelines for workers as well as employers in this industry.
There are several issues for consideration:
1. Title: Adequate.
2. Abstract: Not adequate. Not structured according to Journal recommendations. Generalized information, with no precise information on participants, methodology, using PLS SEM without previous explanation. 220 words.
3. Introduction: Not adequate. Remarks:
a. Introduction is too long. The biggest remark is that it contains a lot of information on health and safety issues and factors in general, with minimal to no focus on welding industry. Out of almost 50 references in the Introduction, only 5-6 are manuscripts connected to issues in welding industry directly
b. Welding as such is just sporadically mentioned, from the title to the conclusions, but with no real information on characteristics, types, uses, or specific health and safety issues in this industry. Authors could replace the term welding with construction, services or any other industry since the focus of the authors was safety training, reward system, employee attitude, top management attitude, safety culture, safety program, reliable equipment and machine, and compliance to safe working condition which are all noteworthy but general aspects of health and safety in any industry.
c. In the introduction section, authors presented 11 hypotheses out of which the only one connected to welding itself is presence and exposure to harmful substances. In the questionnaire authors offered negation statements such as I am not exposed to metal fumes, I am not exposed to harmful gases, I am not exposed to unsafe hot work, I am not exposed to harmful dust or I am not exposed to ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Why are only these statements given as negative statements? Even the supportive reference for these questions is a non- scientific article coming from a health and safety journal.
4. Material and methods: Not adequate.
a. Participants: The survey questionnaires were distributed using Google form to 300 respondents who were based in Singapore and who were directly involved in the welding process in their respective companies. These target respondents were project engineers, production managers, welding inspectors or supervisors, and welders, among others. How did the authors find the participants, how did the authors decide who to send the questionnaires? Authors mentioned 300 participants, and in the results section they changed it to 309 participants? What was the response rate? All the participants responded and adequately understood the questionnaire? Very unclear.
b. Supportive references in the table 1 are not introduced in the order as they appear in the manuscript. First supportive reference is 82 coming after reference 49?
c. 3.3. Structural Equation Modeling. Also, PLS-SEM is the best method for coming up with new theories and making predictions, while CB-SEM is better for testing and proving theories that already exist [55]. What is CB SEM? What new theories did the authors test?
5. Results: Adequate.
6. Discussion: Not adequate. Remarks:
a. Same as Introduction, very long and repeating ideas from Introduction, with little connection to specific welding processes and industry
7. Conclusions: Not adequate. Remarks:
a. Same as Introduction, very long and repeating ideas from Introduction, with little connection to specific welding processes and industry
8. References: Not Adequate. Almost 90 references for a research paper is too much
9. Tables and Figures Adequate
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript presents an important subject regarding the maintenance of social sustainability by enhancing occupational safety and health. The importance of this study lies in its presentation of critical points and areas of opportunity that can be taken into consideration when establishing public and internal policies regarding employee safety in a company's operations.
1. Avoid using keywords that are already included in the title. It is recommended to include "OHS Factors" as one keyword in this section.
2. Define the term "OHS factors" in the introduction section.
3. Indicate in Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of the Study: What "H" Means
4. The methodological approach is considered appropriate; however, the study could have focused solely on a single stakeholder profile. Although in section 6.3 “Limitation and Future Research” it is indicated as a limitation “that the respondents could be anyone from welders to engineers as long as they are directly involved in welding process. This could result in bias on the way they perceived safety and health in workplace since some occupation of the respondents are more exposed to different hazards". Therefore, it is important to justify in the study why it is not sufficient to rely solely on the opinions of a single actor, such as the welders. It is necessary to differentiate the viewpoints of other actors who likely have different opinions based on their job positions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor,
I would like to thank the authors of the manuscript ID Sustainability-2585961 entitled “Enhancing Occupational Safety and Health: Sustainable Approaches to Welding Operations” for presenting the results of their study on assessing the workers’ perception of safety and health factors in the welding industry in Singapore.
The manuscript presents the results of a cross-section study based on data from 309 workers involved in welding industries based in Singapore. The authors performed a literature analysis and created 11 hypotheses concerning health and safety in the welding industry in Singapore. After that, they created a 45-item survey, including questions on demographics, presence and exposure to harmful substances, safety training, reward system, employee attitude, top management attitude, safety culture, safety program, reliable equipment and machine, and compliance to safe working conditions. The survey was distributed by Google Forms, with apparently a 77% response rate. The authors then used a variance-based partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation to test the model.
The results showed that based on the perception of workers in Singapore directly involved in the welding process, the following factors have a direct effect on workplace safety and health: presence and exposure to harmful agents, employees’ attitude towards safety, top management’s attitude towards safety, safety culture, compliance to safe working conditions, and safety programs. This can be used in improving the initiatives and programs of the welding industry.
After reading this article in detail, my main impression is that the article is well written, in adherence to the Journal’s standards, and addresses a very important issue of occupational health and safety issues in the welding industry. Occupational hazards of welding are very well known, as well as risks of injuries at work and occupational diseases in welders. This branch of industry is still growing with the introduction of new materials and technologies, and the demands presented to welders are also on the rise, so there is a strong need for good occupational health and safety guidelines for workers as well as employers in this industry.
There are several issues for consideration:
1. Title: Adequate.
2. Abstract: Adequate. Corrected according to remarks.
3. Introduction: Adequate. Corrected according to remarks.
Remarks: The introduction is still too long, but the authors added important data on welding supported by proper references. The authors should consider a little shortening of the manuscript.
4. Material and method: Adequate. Corrected according to remarks.
5. Results: Adequate.
6. Discussion: Adequate. Corrected according to remarks
a. Same as the Introduction, very long and repeating ideas from Introduction but the authors added important data on welding supported by proper references. The authors should consider a shortening of the manuscript.
7. Conclusions: Adequate. Remarks:
a. Same as Introduction, very long
8. References: Adequate. Almost 90 references for a research paper is too much
9. Tables and Figures Adequate
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
