A Cross-Comparative Analysis of Transportation Safety Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The analysis, although methodologically correct in principle, contributed nothing new. Nowadays in transport, both road and air, there is a great deal of emphasis in research on the human factor, because in transport it is the cause of 80-90% of accidents. Especially now that automation is being introduced. As long as there are no autonomous vehicles, we have to solve the problem of delegating control between the driver/pilot and the vehicle/plane. Linked to automation is cyber security, or the ethics of artificial intelligence.  All these issues affect safety and security.  The analysis carried out did not highlight these issues, so perhaps the keywords were poorly chosen. The issue of automation/autonomisation is also topical in rail transport, where increasingly sophisticated rolling stock management systems (ETCS, ERTMS) are being introduced, which are also expected to lead to greater safety. The description of the various branches of transport is somewhat trivial. In each case, it is an operator's job, carried out under different conditions and in different modes of transport.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comment. We would like to note that the intention of this article was not to bring something new, per se. On the contrary, following the primary purpose of the special issue of SafeMetrics-Quantitative Science Studies for Safety Science (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/SafeMetrics_Quantitative_Science_Studies_for_Safety_Science), we wanted to highlight topics in safety research in the transportation field and the common features and differences that prevail in this research. In the article, criteria were chosen that allowed us to select the most relevant studies (in terms of the number of citations and relevance). Although we agree that the topics you mentioned are current, the research results pointed to other trends, which we indeed find interesting. However, we can still draw conclusions related to typical and different characteristics prevalent in research.   Best wishes, Tirpáková (on behalf of the authors).

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract: Needs complete revision. Follow the pattern: Purpose, Method(s) used, Findings, Novelty, and Research implications. Revise keywords.

Introduction: Check lines 26 and 27. Provide a reference for Stoop and Thissen. Coherence and continuity are missing. Discussion on earlier studies was missing.

Materials and Methods: Why web of science is preferred and not Scopus? Any reasons? If so, mention the reason for choosing WoS over Scopus. How the number of articles was reduced to 50 from 500. How many articles were rejected at each stage? It would be better if the selection and rejection criteria is provided in a Table.

Data Source: Keyword analysis can be carried out.

Results and discussion: No reference(s) were provided in this section. Here, comparison and contrast of the finding are very important. Overall, this section looks vague. No significant findings were provided or discussed. Figures in this section have to be discussed. 

Conclusions: The first paragraph can be deleted as it is already mentioned in the materials and method section. Consider providing the findings in lines and not in points. Avoid reference in this section. Highlight the major contributions of the study while mentioning the limitations also.       

  

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please look at our point-by-point response to your comments below: 

Abstract: Needs complete revision. Follow the pattern: Purpose, Method(s) used, Findings, Novelty, and Research implications. Revise keywords.

Authors response: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback. The abstract was edited according to the suggested pattern. Please see the revised version in the adjusted article.

Introduction: Check lines 26 and 27. Provide a reference for Stoop and Thissen. Coherence and continuity are missing. Discussion on earlier studies was missing.

Authors response: A reference to Stoop and Thissen was provided. The introduction was modified and supplemented with an intro to some current safety research topics in transport. We would like to emphasize that the purpose of this article was not to provide a content overview of existing research but to identify themes emerging in the research quantitatively according to the the special issue of SafeMetrics-Quantitative Science Studies for Safety Science (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/SafeMetrics_Quantitative_Science_Studies_for_Safety_Science). 

Materials and Methods: Why web of science is preferred and not Scopus? Any reasons? If so, mention the reason for choosing WoS over Scopus. How the number of articles was reduced to 50 from 500. How many articles were rejected at each stage? It would be better if the selection and rejection criteria is provided in a Table.

Authors response: We consider the Web of Science one of the most relevant databases suitable for quantitative analysis. Although Scopus would provide us with the same options as Web of Science, we prefer this database at work. The articles were selected based on a determined search formula according to year of publication (from 2000 to 2022) and language (English), type of document (article and proceedings paper), relevance and the minimum number of citations. Even though we value your suggestion, we decided not to include a table with selection and rejection criteria in the Materials and Methods chapters because they are described in the text.

Data Source: Keyword analysis can be carried out.

Authors response: Keywords refer to the main topics described in the form of concept maps in the next chapter of the article. Also, for that reason, we decided not to perform another keyword analysis.

Results and discussion: No reference(s) were provided in this section. Here, comparison and contrast of the finding are very important. Overall, this section looks vague. No significant findings were provided or discussed. Figures in this section have to be discussed.

Authors response:  Thank you for your opinion; we have added some acquired knowledge to this chapter after consideration.

Conclusions: The first paragraph can be deleted as it is already mentioned in the materials and method section. Consider providing the findings in lines and not in points. Avoid reference in this section. Highlight the major contributions of the study while mentioning the limitations also.      

Authors response: Thanks for the suggestion; the first paragraph was deleted, and findings were summarized in the text instead of points, the reference was also removed. The contribution of this article was the quantitative analysis of existing studies, and the limits of the article were supplemented.

Best wishes,

Tirpáková (on behalf of the authors). 

Reviewer 3 Report

The goal of this study is to the main directions for individual modes of transportation through Content Analysis. Although it is a significant topic, authors need to consider the following comments:

Line 107: Three hypotheses have been addressed in this study. However, this reviewer could not understand the contribution of these hypotese tests to the field of Transportation. For example, what is the result when H3 is accepted? (multidisciplinary study is needed?)

Line 316: Similar to the previous comment, authors should discusss the trend analysis result. (e.g., What kind of multidisciplinary study is conducted. How multidisciplinary study can improve the safety issue. why multidisciplinary study can improve the safety issue. How researcher can conduct multidisciplinary. what areas should be involed. recommendation on cooperation types in safety research. etc.) 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please look at our point-by-point response to your comments below: 

Line 107: Three hypotheses have been addressed in this study. However, this reviewer could not understand the contribution of these hypotese tests to the field of Transportation. For example, what is the result when H3 is accepted? (multidisciplinary study is needed?)

Authors response: Thank you for your comment. Hypothesis 3 refers to the findings of previous research presented in 1997 by the author's Stoop and Thissen, which we already mentioned at the beginning of the article. The result of the quantitative analysis pointed out that the current research from 2000 to 2022 deals with different topics, which are often interconnected. For this reason, hypothesis 3 has been confirmed, and the recent research can be considered multidisciplinary.

Line 316: Similar to the previous comment, authors should discusss the trend analysis result. (e.g., What kind of multidisciplinary study is conducted. How multidisciplinary study can improve the safety issue. why multidisciplinary study can improve the safety issue. How researcher can conduct multidisciplinary. what areas should be involed. recommendation on cooperation types in safety research. etc.)

Authors response: Thank you for the recommendation; a paragraph about multidisciplinarity and its advantages for safety research has been added at the end of the article.

Best wishes,

Tirpáková (on behalf of the authors). 

Reviewer 4 Report

First, please simplify the title, which is too long to read.

Then, in data source, please introduce your database where the articles you selected from.

The most important thing I think is, in result and discussion part, could you explain how your research provides contribution to sustainability?

Conclusion part is insufficient, based on your research, the future research direction and trend should be put forward in details. And how about the common limitations about the previous articles?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please look at our point-by-point response to your comments below:

First, please simplify the title, which is too long to read.

Authors response: Thank you for the recommendation; we changed the title to A Cross-Comparative Bibliometric Analysis in Transportation Safety Research

Then, in data source, please introduce your database where the articles you selected from.

Authors response: Please look at the attached file that corresponds to the database used

The most important thing I think is, in result and discussion part, could you explain how your research provides contribution to sustainability?

Authors response: In Conclusion, a paragraph was added about how the topics of safety and sustainability are related. In essence, we believe that these are two inseparable pillars because safety directly reflects sustainability, and sustainability contributes to safety.

Conclusion part is insufficient, based on your research, the future research direction and trend should be put forward in details. And how about the common limitations about the previous articles?

Authors response: Thank you for the proposal; assumptions about future trends in safety research were added to the article.

Best wishes,

Tirpáková (on behalf of the authors)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The work presents an interesting and timely theme, which must be taken into account, but it presents important deficiencies, which the authors must solve so that the work can be published.

 

STRUCTURE ISSUES

·         There are deficiencies in the structure. The marking in the standards for authors (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions) is not followed. In this sense, the summary is deficient: it must go from the generic (mini-compendium) to the specific. The methodology must be developed as mixed (review and content analysis).

·         The heading 3. Data Source must be integrated into 2. Materials and Methods.

·         The conclusions are partly summarized in another discussion. They should come from the literature review, data analysis and discussion. Part of the conclusions go to the summary, another to the discussion.

·         In part, the problems arise from presenting the work as a research article, when it is a literature review to which a content analysis is applied.

FORMATTING AND REFERENCES

·         Reviews lend themselves to long papers, however this one is brief. They should expand the introduction and discussion.

·         If a review is carried out, it is normal for part of the studies to be shown in the analysis and discussion and for them to appear in the references (although not all).

·         There are no citations about the methodology applied in the review, which is the starting point of the article.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

·         The objectives are not clearly formulated, in fact, the topics addressed are previously set by the authors. They must justify them with the literature, that's what systematic reviews are for: so many authors talk about this, so many about this... and thus build the discourse.

·         In the methodological approach there is a problem. It is a mixed methodology (Figure 1), in which the bibliographic review appears on the one hand and, on the other, the treatment of these data (content analysis). If the review is not systematic, the textual analysis will not be adequate. It is a correlation (the title indicates it this way).

·         Focus the methodology in your review and analysis, it is not necessary to explain the differences between quantitative and qualitative research, you just have to justify them.

·         There is something wrong, the sources have been previously selected, with which there is a bias: a previous decision has been made. In a systematic review it is not appropriate to make arbitrary decisions: as there are many documents, the first 50 are selected for each transport... Taking 50 articles per type of transport is a random decision, which invalidates a systematic review. Why? Because the importance of transport (and security) is not the same in all types (as the authors affirm in the text). In addition, it does not make sense to select to later carry out a content analysis (the result is what the authors intended). It really invalidates the results, it is not a systematic review, a bias derived from that decision has been voluntarily introduced. On the other hand, the relevance of document 1 may be greater than that of document 51 (for example, having more citations, as they claim), but it does not have to be more representative for that.

·         On the other hand, the magazine Safety Science distorts the sample. It would have been more appropriate to eliminate it from the sample or make a specific analysis of it...

·         Why is river transport excluded from the study?

·         A cohort is taken from 2000 to 2022, and this is a problem. The years 2020, 2021 and 2022 are conditioned by the pandemic, which conditions transport and also security, but which has diverted the investigation to the subject of COVID-19. However, this issue does not appear (either related to safety or as a limitation of the study).

·         The methodological limitations should go in the conclusions, or create a subheading within the methodology.

·         The formulation of hypotheses 1 and 2 is incorrect (applying percentages...), if the number of papers reviewed has already been limited to 50 (or 200), their compliance has been previously verified, with which they are ratified or not...

CONTENT ISSUES

·         Summary: introduces generalizations and inaccuracies (“for many years”); there is no indication why security is important; An accidental image is one thing and security is another, they are making a correlation that does not necessarily always occur in the same direction (lines 9-10).

·         The introduction should focus on the issues that are addressed later in the analysis, this will allow a discussion to be made later, which the article lacks.

·         There is a confusion between modes of transport and types of transport, sometimes it refers to the road and others to the transport itself, they must take care of this.

·         There are value judgments “Transportation is vital for the overall growth and well-being of our society”, it is as an instrument of capitalism, they should say “It is fundamental for trade, displacement…”

·         Statements must always be corroborated by scientific literature: “Although it is a wide variety of potential indicators, safety is part of their proposal for the social sustainability of transport” who says this?; “The risk issue remains the focus of researchers and decision-makers, whether for its evaluation [11-14] or others.” which is it? Research must be precise… This is repeated in Results and discussion, where there are no citations or contrast: “With millions of flights taking off and landing daily” this is not true (look at ICAO); “Plus, it is historically proven that aviation disasters are inevitable and have enormous impacts.” who says this?…

·         Is there a correlation between accidents or incidents (in a means of transport...) and concern for safety in the scientific literature?

·         Very important: the fact that there is no research on a subject or that it has not been found does not mean that the phenomenon we are missing does not exist. It is necessary, at all times, to refer to what we have found and to what we have not found, but not to deduce that it does not exist because we have not found it.

·         They must start from what they have found to develop the results: these topics are addressed by these authors, and from there analyze and discuss with the literature that has been reviewed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First, we would like to thank you for your time and valuable comments on our article. Please look at our point-by-point response to your comments below: 

STRUCTURE ISSUES

• There are deficiencies in the structure. The marking in the standards for authors (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions) is not followed. In this sense, the summary is deficient: it must go from the generic (mini-compendium) to the specific. The methodology must be developed as mixed (review and content analysis).
• The heading 3. Data Source must be integrated into 2. Materials and Methods.
• The conclusions are partly summarized in another discussion. They should come from the literature review, data analysis and discussion. Part of the conclusions go to the summary, another to the discussion.
• In part, the problems arise from presenting the work as a research article, when it is a literature review to which a content analysis is applied.

Authors response: Thanks for your comments;

• Changes have been made to the article which we believe have improved its structure.
• Chapter 3. Data Source was changed to sub-chapter 2.1 and belongs to Materials and Methods.
• We agree that some parts could be added to the Conclusion and vice versa. Still, in the Discussion, we tried to summarize the analysis results, while in the Conclusion, we presented the research findings, assumptions, and limits. For that reason, we would also like to keep the structure in this form.
• We would like to emphasize that this was not a review article but an article dealing with quantitative analysis in the sense of a special issue: SafeMetrics-Quantitative Science Studies for Safety Science (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/SafeMetrics_Quantitative_Science_Studies_for_Safety_Science).

FORMATTING AND REFERENCES

• Reviews lend themselves to long papers, however this one is brief. They should expand the introduction and discussion.
• If a review is carried out, it is normal for part of the studies to be shown in the analysis and discussion and for them to appear in the references (although not all).
• There are no citations about the methodology applied in the review, which is the starting point of the article.

Authors response: Thank you for your comments;

• As was mentioned earlier, goal was not a review article but a quantitative analysis of existing studies. In our article, we do not highlight their content, but above all, what they deal with, what keywords appear in the research, and finally, we appeal to the topics and trends in research.
• We referred to the content analysis methodology implemented by a software tool (citation 29-34), but the methodology was supplemented, including the citation.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

• The objectives are not clearly formulated, in fact, the topics addressed are previously set by the authors. They must justify them with the literature, that's what systematic reviews are for: so many authors talk about this, so many about this... and thus build the discourse.
• In the methodological approach there is a problem. It is a mixed methodology (Figure 1), in which the bibliographic review appears on the one hand and, on the other, the treatment of these data (content analysis). If the review is not systematic, the textual analysis will not be adequate. It is a correlation (the title indicates it this way).
• Focus the methodology in your review and analysis, it is not necessary to explain the differences between quantitative and qualitative research, you just have to justify them.
• There is something wrong, the sources have been previously selected, with which there is a bias: a previous decision has been made. In a systematic review it is not appropriate to make arbitrary decisions: as there are many documents, the first 50 are selected for each transport... Taking 50 articles per type of transport is a random decision, which invalidates a systematic review. Why? Because the importance of transport (and security) is not the same in all types (as the authors affirm in the text). In addition, it does not make sense to select to later carry out a content analysis (the result is what the authors intended). It really invalidates the results, it is not a systematic review, a bias derived from that decision has been voluntarily introduced. On the other hand, the relevance of document 1 may be greater than that of document 51 (for example, having more citations, as they claim), but it does not have to be more representative for that.
• On the other hand, the magazine Safety Science distorts the sample. It would have been more appropriate to eliminate it from the sample or make a specific analysis of it...
• Why is river transport excluded from the study?
• A cohort is taken from 2000 to 2022, and this is a problem. The years 2020, 2021 and 2022 are conditioned by the pandemic, which conditions transport and also security, but which has diverted the investigation to the subject of COVID-19. However, this issue does not appear (either related to safety or as a limitation of the study).
• The methodological limitations should go in the conclusions, or create a subheading within the methodology.
• The formulation of hypotheses 1 and 2 is incorrect (applying percentages...), if the number of papers reviewed has already been limited to 50 (or 200), their compliance has been previously verified, with which they are ratified or not...

Authors response

• The research objective was more clearly defined and adjusted.
• We think the methodology used is appropriate given the purpose and results. 
• The special issue in which the article was submitted for assessment is focused only on quantitative analysis. Since we carried out the research with content analysis, which is more commonly used for qualitative analysis, we considered it essential to supplement this issue.
• As stated in the methodology, the articles were carefully selected based on pre-established criteria, while each article had to be additionally checked to suit the software used.
• Safety Science gives space to safety studies, and the goal was the analysis of safety studies, so this journal was a suitable source. It is not a single source, as shown in Table 1.
• River transport is not included because it is often not an international mode of transportation, and the number of studies on this issue is significantly lower. 
• The limitation related to COVID-19 and methodology was added to the Conclusion.
• We believe the hypotheses are appropriately designed, and we do not consider them a priority in the article but only as an addition.

CONTENT ISSUES

• Summary: introduces generalizations and inaccuracies (“for many years”); there is no indication why security is important; An accidental image is one thing and security is another, they are making a correlation that does not necessarily always occur in the same direction (lines 9-10).
• The introduction should focus on the issues that are addressed later in the analysis, this will allow a discussion to be made later, which the article lacks.
• There is a confusion between modes of transport and types of transport, sometimes it refers to the road and others to the transport itself, they must take care of this.
• There are value judgments “Transportation is vital for the overall growth and well-being of our society”, it is as an instrument of capitalism, they should say “It is fundamental for trade, displacement…”
• Statements must always be corroborated by scientific literature: “Although it is a wide variety of potential indicators, safety is part of their proposal for the social sustainability of transport” who says this?; “The risk issue remains the focus of researchers and decision-makers, whether for its evaluation [11-14] or others.” which is it? Research must be precise… This is repeated in Results and discussion, where there are no citations or contrast: “With millions of flights taking off and landing daily” this is not true (look at ICAO); “Plus, it is historically proven that aviation disasters are inevitable and have enormous impacts.” who says this?…
• Is there a correlation between accidents or incidents (in a means of transport...) and concern for safety in the scientific literature?
• Very important: the fact that there is no research on a subject or that it has not been found does not mean that the phenomenon we are missing does not exist. It is necessary, at all times, to refer to what we have found and to what we have not found, but not to deduce that it does not exist because we have not found it.
• They must start from what they have found to develop the results: these topics are addressed by these authors, and from there analyze and discuss with the literature that has been reviewed.

Authors response: Thank you for your comment; each was noted, and a few were made in modified versions.

• The summary has been edited and the introduction was also revised.
• "types of transportation" was changed to "modes of transportation" in the article.
• All judgments are based on research, and we agree with them, plus statements were edited.
• In general, an accident includes a severe injury or illness, while an incident consists of property damage, an unexpected hazard, or a minor injury; this also applies in the case of transport - added to article.

We tried to incorporate and respond to every comment. We believe it improved our article.

Best wishes,

Tirpáková (on behalf of the authors).

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 the amendments you have made have enriched the article a little, however I do not agree with the statement that the article should not bring anything new, otherwise it is not worth writing and reading. In your case, it is possible to focus on the methodology and quantitative approach to the analyzed subject matter, since the specified range of topics is known but fortunately there are new issues to be studied. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comment. We didn't want it to sound like the article didn't bring anything new at all. In its essence, our article presents the direction in which transportation safety research has gone and is going. Therefore, we believe this article also benefits the academic community.

Best Regards,

Michaela Tirpakova (on behalf of the authors)

Reviewer 2 Report

Earlier comments have been addressed satisfactorily. Hence, I recommend it for possible publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you, we value your opinion and time. 

Best Regards,

Michaela Tirpakova (on behalf of the authors).

Reviewer 3 Report

All the previous comments have been appropriately incorporated in the revised manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you, we value your opinion and time. 

Best Regards,

Michaela Tirpakova (on behalf of the authors).

Reviewer 4 Report

All my issues have been solved, it could be accepted now.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you, we value your opinion and time. 

Best Regards,

Michaela Tirpakova (on behalf of the authors).

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors have met part of what was asked of them in the first review. I think that the change in the summary redirects the text, as indicated in the answer.

Despite this, there are two issues to change:

By insisting on content analysis, the title does not match the content; bibliometric analysis is the way to obtain the data, not the content addressed. The authors changed.

Much more important: there is still no discussion, since the results were discussed. A discussion in a scientific article summarizes, interprets and extrapolates the results, they are confronted with the proposed hypotheses, considering how the perspective of other authors has been. This last aspect has been neglected, an interruption with the review of previous literature is not established.

In matters of content, there are still value judgments "Transport is vital for the growth and general well-being of our society", it is as an instrument of capitalism, it would force us to say "It is essential for trade, travel..." or "for the royal society"; (economic) growth and general well-being should not be correlated, as fundamental to the SDGs...

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments, we value your opinion and time. 

On your recommendation, the title was changed to: A Cross-Comparative Analysis in Transportation Safety Research.

A separate chapter 4. Discussion was added to the article, in which we discussed the results of the performed analysis. Some findings are supported by reference to the literature we drew on. 

Value judgments have been partially removed and replaced, but we would like to keep some of them because we believe they reflect the findings of the studies used.

Best Regards,

Michaela Tirpakova (on behalf of the authors).

Round 3

Reviewer 5 Report

The modifications basically respond to what was requested, although there are aspects that could be improved, it can be considered acceptable.