Risk Assessment in Practice: A Case Analysis of the Pohang Steel Mill in Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study addresses the risk assessment on the PohangSteel mill in Korea. The paper needs major revision before publication consideration.

(1) The abstract needs to be re-written, especially for the first half of this section.

(2) The research motivations and research gap are not addressed in the first section. It will be better if research gap is focused to clarify the theoretical contributions.

(3) There lacks of literature reveiw section. There are vast majority of risk assessment approaches and applications. It will be better if a systematic review is performed to help better understanding the proposed framework of this study.

(4) What is the role of formula 1?

(5) The qualitative indicator criteria scale is crisp value. However, the linguistic term is not clear, and it will be better if fuzzy set numbers could be employed to describe the descriptive evaluations.

(6) What is the specific meaning of relative co-efficient? Does this indicator means RPN in risk analysis? If it is not this meaning, why not RPN?

(7) The practical implications could be addressed to help better understand the paper.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing my manuscript. Your comments have been very helpful, and I made every effort to reflect them into my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate it again. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author, this is so important social research and can be significant to the policy-making by the government.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing my manuscript. Your comments have been very helpful, and I made every effort to reflect them into my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate it again. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript clearly presents risk assessment practices using a case study in Korea. While the MS is well written in the initial sections (introduction and methods) and informs some important insights, a few corrections are suggested. 

Lines 61-62: Please rephrase this sentence to make the meaning clear.

Lines 116-147: Please arrange these small paragraphs into 2-3 larger paragraphs with clear coherence and flow.

Lines 306-307: This is a method. Please provide a pitch of your key findings in the first paragraph and then elaborate each finding in detail in the subsequent paragraphs.

Lines 306-358: The discussion needs to be extended and should discuss the implications of the findings to the global context.

Lines 360-395: The conclusion should be clear and abridged. In the present form, the conclusion repeats or reiterate the methods. This reduce the quality of the MS. Please rewrite this section emphasizing on the key findings and their implications. You may also consider suggesting some directions for future research. 

Line 397: I wonder if the title "Patent" relates to the sections that you have included.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing my manuscript. Your comments have been very helpful, and I made every effort to reflect them into my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate it again. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

While thanking the authors for their efforts in improving the MS, I would like to suggest the following edits. 

Lines 64 – 65: Rephrase the sentence “Among them, there are several methods for qualitative evaluation performed in this study [5].”

Lines 124-160: Some sentences under methods have been reported in the simple present tense. Please change them into past passive form.

Lines 311-316: Still the opening paragraph is missing. Please open your discussion with the key findings of this research.

Lines 372-373: The sentence needs to be fine-tuned.

Lines 377-379: Is this from your study?

Lines 380-382: Is it a finding from your study? If so, link to the previous section. If not, link this to the relevant finding from your study.

Lines 401-411: This section needs further editing and fine-tuning to improve the MS.

 

I also wish to highlight that the overall MS should be checked for language and coherence. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing my manuscript. Your additional comments have been very helpful, and I made every effort to reflect them into my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate it again. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Line 3 "risk was" change to "each risk was"

Lines 18-19: The sentence is not clear.

The abstract needs to be revised and improved to reflect and report the findings of the study in a clear and abridged way.

Line 31: State the full name at first mention.

Lines 31-33: What's the relevance of the last sentence to the preceding sentence? I can't find the link in the current format. You may need to modify the sentences to make a clear link.

Line 39: partly repeating the meaning of the previous sentence.

Figure 3: Move to supplementary files.

Table 3 heading does not read well.  

The conclusion needs to be rewritten to be to the point and abridged. You have used "in this study" twice at the beginning of the first and second paragraphs. I would suggest making the conclusion in a single paragraph to make it clear and concise.

Author Response

I made significant efforts to integrate the your comments into the manuscript. I appreciate the time you dedicated to reviewing it and your invaluable contribution to its improvement. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf