Human-Related Hazardous Events Assessment for Suffocation on Ships by Integrating Bayesian Network and Complex Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, a comprehensive analysis model composed by Bayesian network (BN) and complex network (CN) is proposed. Finally, the results from BN simulation are interpretation from perspectives of brief analysis, backward analysis and sensitivity analysis. The results are verified with existing studies and the accident investigation report issued by authority. First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors on the manuscript as they present a novel approach to this type of model. Thus, I believe that the article can be improved in the following aspects:
1. Write abstract in a more claiming manner by highlighting your contribution.
2. Please recheck all your derivations meticulously.
3. Have you used any software for evaluation of the derived or proposed equations?
4. Figures etc. should be made more clear and visible.
5. Please correct all grammatical errors which are plenty in numbers.
6. Please check the reference list and delete the less relevant ones and add few more relevant ones.
7. Rewrite conclusion in a precise way.
8. Add separate subheading for discussions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “On the human-related hazardous events assessment for suffocation in ships by integrating Bayesian network and complex network”. The authors are very appreciative of the valuable comments and recommendations provided for the improvement of the above-referenced manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript. The point to point responses and revisions made to the manuscript can be found in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract

- well written

 

Introduction

- Lines 100 to 101, need to add citations because the authors mention "Meanwhile, studies have shown ...". So we know the authors refer to which studies.

- The rest of this section is acceptable.

 

Principles of the proposed methodology

- Section 2.1. Overview of the proposed methodology, Figure 1 does not tally with steps 1,2,3 and 4. I believe the steps explain the process in Figure 1. Still, the explanation seems not to represent the process in Figure 1. suggestion, the author can do like this example, "Step 1 -Risk scenario description（accident report. The human-related hazardous events involved 185 in the accident report are first identified based on the principle of ETA, and then .....". "Step 2 - Human-related hazardous events. The criticality of the nodes involved ..."

- The rest of section 2 was well written and organized. 

 

Application of methodology

- this section was well written. 

 

Results and discussion

- the result and discussion were presented in detail and can be accepted.

 

Conclusions

- ok.

 

Reference

- ok and most of the references are up to date.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “On the human-related hazardous events assessment for suffocation in ships by integrating Bayesian network and complex network”. The authors are very appreciative of the valuable comments and recommendations provided for the improvement of the above-referenced manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript. The point to point responses and revisions made to the manuscript can be found in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The study presents a model composed by Bayesian Network (BN) and Complex Network (CN). According to the paper, authors propose a human-related hazardous events assessment methodology with fully consideration of influence from social and technical aspects, by which the risks stemming from operation on-site and management level can be quantitatively analyzed for the accidents during the docking repair.

In my opinion, the manuscript needs a better organization of contents, and several subsections could be merged to improve its discursiveness.

I suggest organizing the paper by using the Introduction-Background, Methods, Results And Discussion (IMRAD) structure recommended by BDCC in “Instructions for Authors” (subsection: “Research Manuscript Sections”). To give an example, the section “Principles of the proposed methodology” could be renamed “Materials and Methods”, by merging the latter and the section “Application of methodology”.

Section 2 and Section 3 each subsection, as well as the section, report a small introduction that is useless, these could be moved into “Introduction”. Similarly, for “2.4.2 Basic principle for Bayesian inference” in that it is a theoretical content used to design your methodology, but it does not explain the latter.

Within the sections related to the methodology, essential elements related to the networks are missing, from a purely informative point of view. To give an example, Section 2.4.1 should be extended, in my opinion. 

-        Minors: Spell checking and typos.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “On the human-related hazardous events assessment for suffocation in ships by integrating Bayesian network and complex network”. The authors are very appreciative of the valuable comments and recommendations provided for the improvement of the above-referenced manuscript. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the manuscript. The point to point responses and revisions made to the manuscript can be found in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am happy with this version. It can be accepted now.

Reviewer 3 Report

According to the new version of the manuscript, I checked the responses provided by authors.

In the revised manuscript, the discussion of the existing literature is sufficient, and the it is cited appropriately. Furthermore, “Methods” reports exhaustive details. In my opinion, the granularity of the sections is excessive, some of them could be merged; this comment is discretionally. I suggest checking typos. However, I  think that manuscript may be accepted in present form.