The Influence of Shipboard Safety Factors on Quality of Safety Supervision: Croatian Seafarer’s Attitudes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
This is a well written paper and should be of interest to a wide range of readers.
Author Response
Authors' reply:
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the reviewer for the time he devoted reviewing the manuscript and for his kind words on the content of the same.
Kind regards,
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
I have check the submitted manuscript. The manuscript can be accepted.
Author Response
Authors' reply:
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the reviewer for the time he devoted reviewing the manuscript and for his kind words on the content of the same.
Kind regards,
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Manuscript title: The influence of shipboard safety factors on quality of safety supervision: Croatian seafarer's attitudes
Manuscript No. jmse-1888539
Reviewer comments
The manuscript entitled “The influence of shipboard safety factors on quality of safety supervision: Croatian seafarer's attitudes” aims to find the influence factors on supervision on board ships based on Croatian seafarers investigation. It is interesting. The measurement scales are developed based literatures and practice, 413 questionnaires are collected, EFA with PCA are used for data analysis. Generally, Scales developed are credible, the quantity of questionnaire is enough, the analysis method is correct. The findings are referable.
The major comments:
1) the questionnaire based investigation always bring social desirability which will create inaccuracies in the data collection. The authors should clarify the measures taken during data collection.
2) the authors are advised to examine the common method bias.
3) After the dimensionality of factors determined, un-dimensionality affairs should be reviewed and analyzed, in addition construct model fitness test, convergent validity survey and discriminant validity inspection should be taken.
4) the main finding in this manuscript is that the safety communication and safety training are the significant predictors of safety supervision on board ship. In fact, the authors are advised to address more in-depth implications in theory and practice.
5) some new papers which closely related with this manuscript are advised to review, such as
Xi, Y. , Hu, S. , Yang, Z. , Fu, S. , & Weng, J. . Analysis of safety climate effect on individual safety consciousness creation and safety behaviour improvement in shipping operations. 2022.
Xi, Y. , et al. "The effect of social cognition and risk tolerance on marine pilots' safety behaviour." (2021).
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
(1) It is suggested to reorganize the materials in order to better present the research. For example, I suggest a separate section of literature review, into which Section 1.1 can be merged. In addition to the situation in this field, some current research related to the topics of shipboard safety and safety supervision is also required, followed by a summary of research gaps. In Section 1, the main contributions can be added, as well as the structure of this research.
(2) In Section 2.1, it says a total of 24 safety climate items were selected. What are they? An introduction of these items is necessary.
(3) It is suggested to provide a sample of questionnaire for readers’ reference.
(4) It is suggested that Section 2.3 can be put in Section 3.
(5) Future research is suggested in the last section.
(6) In recent years, some related research based on questionnaire survey have been conducted. It is highly recommended that the authors refer to these studies in terms of the presentation of research. For example, (2019). Analysis of risk factors influencing the safety of maritime container supply chains. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 11(6), 476-507.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors have revised the manuscript according to reviewer's comments. I have no further comments.
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
All my concerns have been addressed by the authors. No more comments.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper. It was an interesting and exciting read which is well suited for the special issue. I found your writing and the presentation of your work to be of a very high standard and your paper was well supported with appropriate and safety domain relevant and well known references.
The manuscript appeared to be scientifically sound and the experimental design was appropriate with a clear discussion on the methodology used and its rationale. Your tables and the presentation of your data analysis was appropriate, clear and easy to understand.
The conclusions were consistent with the evidence presented and I believe your work would be reproducible into other industries as well as within the maritime industry.
Overall I did not find fault with the paper and felt that your work was timely and relevant. A well presented and current piece of work, well done.
Author Response
Authors' reply:
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the reviewer for the time he devoted reviewing the manuscript and for his kind words on the content of the same.
Kind regards,
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
In this study, a questionnaire with 24 statements was 12 distributed to professional seafarers to analyse the critical factors of marine accidents. The correlations among all related factors are compared by approaches (e.g. Pearson correlation analysis, Hierarchical multiple regression analysis). The motivation is clear. However, the contribution significance of this study should be further improved. In addition, as a survey is implemented, an ethic check form must be provided.
Some details can be considered:
1. There are many similar studies to identify the crucial factors that are related to shipping accidents. What is your novelty? I feel your conclusions show no differences. For instance, crew member training, and communication failed. All those factors have been well studied and emphasised in previous studies and reports.
2. As experts are invited during the survey. A detailed table of those candidates should be given. Also, the questionnaire.
3. The novelty of your findings is not well concluded in the discussion part.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we have made new improvements to the article according your suggestions/recommendations.
Thank you for the suggestions that helped us improve the paper.
Kind regards,
Authors
……………………………………………………………………….
Reviewer 2
In this study, a questionnaire with 24 statements was 12 distributed to professional seafarers to analyse the critical factors of marine accidents. The correlations among all related factors are compared by approaches (e.g. Pearson correlation analysis, Hierarchical multiple regression analysis). The motivation is clear. However, the contribution significance of this study should be further improved. In addition, as a survey is implemented, an ethic check form must be provided.
Authors' reply: Your comment is well received. Text is amended as suggested. Approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee is now provided.
Some details can be considered:
- There are many similar studies to identify the crucial factors that are related to shipping accidents. What is your novelty? I feel your conclusions show no differences. For instance, crew member training, and communication failed. All those factors have been well studied and emphasised in previous studies and reports.
Authors' reply: Your comment is well received.
As you stated, numerous studies have been done to investigate shipping accidents and incidents, and of course the cause is more or less always the same. Organizational factors are almost always to blame in most studies. Numerous recommendations are made, but accidents and incidents still occur. Question is why when the STCW and ISM standards are same for all companies/seafarers.
Based on EMSA's findings (low quality of safety supervision was to blame for majority of accidents), this study took a different approach: It examined the influence of ISM requirements on the quality of safety supervision, i.e., it excluded external (organizational) factors and examined only the ship-related elements (ISM) and perceived quality of supervision, i.e., their enforcement in real life as seen by the seafarers.
Problem could also be in the new generations of seafarers (younger age), company tenure or in collected sea service (some personal habits acquired during the time and/or attitudes/perceptions how the shipboard management conduct operation, good or bad way). Therefore, these issues were also examined and proved not to be statistically significant. Also, according to the literature there are differences among various nationalities. Therefore, this study examined Croatian seafarers’ attitudes/perceptions and results can find their purpose for those companies which employ them. Furthermore, since vast majority of them is sailing in multicultural environment some cross-cultural influence among them is to be expected. This issue should be explored further. So, researchers still have a problem to explore.
- As experts are invited during the survey. A detailed table of those candidates should be given. Also, the questionnaire.
Authors' reply:
Your comment is well received. However, we are not sure on which experts during the survey reviewer is referring, i.e. the exact line number in the manuscript is missing.
The target of our survey was to explore seafarers’ perceptions on the subject matter. Therefore, we consider the respondents perceptions/attitudes as the expert opinions. In the subsection “2.3 Survey sample”, all respondents background details are provided in the form of text. In fact, we did consider the idea to provide their background details in the form of table but found that it was to complicated to follow. Finally, it was concluded that most convenient way to present the respondents background details is in the form of text.
If the reviewer consider sentence contained in Discussion section: “We consider…” (original manuscript) to be expert opinions, we can answer positively; this statement is based on the expert opinions of the authors. All the authors have PhDs, have extensive sea service on various vessel types, going through the ranks from cadets, deck officers to Master Mariners, the last author as Chief Engineer. In addition, the last two authors were employed as Superintendents by reputable companies. We consider it unnecessary to give details of the authors in the manuscript. Readers who wish to know more about the authors can find all the necessary details on their affiliation websites or social networks.
To remove any possible ambiguity, the sentence is now reworded and begins as follows:
"Based on the authors' expert opinions, the issue of resolving conflict situations on board is particularly important as modern merchant ships have a minimum crew, usually around 20-25 seafarers."
Questionnaire related suggestion: content of the questionnaire is summarized in the subsections: “2.3 Survey sample”; “3.1 Exploratory factor analysis of safety supervision related variables “and “3.2 Exploratory factor analysis of shipboard environment related variables”.
Subsection 2.3 contains summarized all respondent’s background questions used.
Subsection 3.1 contains list of all statements (variables) used to examine quality of safety supervision onboard.
Subsection 3.1 contains list of all statements used to examine the factor structure of 20 shipboard environment related variables, including items excluded from the analysis.
Therefore, the questionnaire in whole is summarized in the stated subsections. Adding the questionnaire to the manuscript should only lead to duplication of content.
- The novelty of your findings is not well concluded in the discussion part.
Authors' reply: Your comment is well received; Discussion and Conclusion sections are amended accordingly, along with comment 1.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article deals with the influence of shipboard safety factors on the quality of safety supervision. In my opinion, however, the title needs to be changed because the study only applies to Croatian seafarers and not worldwide. In my opinion, the article is a case study and nothing more. It does not present a model applicable to the whole family of seafarers worldwide, which is the biggest shortcoming of this article.
I also think that the article could be better structured. I would even recommend cutting the introductory part, as it is not interesting at all and presents already very well-known facts. In line 26, recently published data is mentioned. Is the already 4 years old data really new?
The methodology used is sound, but the results are not self-explanatory and should be elaborated further. The chapter on data collection is not self-explanatory. The discharge of 113 answers could give the reader the impression that you wanted to adjust the results according to your expectations. If you have collected 413 completed questionnaires, then I think you have to work with that. This part is quite confusing and needs to be changed.
The writing format is not exactly in line with the JMSE/MDPI Instructions for Authors (i.e. acronyms/abbreviations/initialisms should be defined when they are first cited in the text (i.e. lines 22, 46, etc.), the quality of the tables needs to be improved.
I hope that my comments will help to improve your paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we have made new improvements to the article according your suggestions/recommendations.
Thank you for the suggestions that helped us improve the paper.
Kind regards,
Authors
………………………………………………….
Reviewer 3
1. The article deals with the influence of shipboard safety factors on the quality of safety supervision. In my opinion, however, the title needs to be changed because the study only applies to Croatian seafarers and not worldwide.
Authors' reply: Your comment is well received. The title of the manuscript is amended according to the suggestion.
2. In my opinion, the article is a case study and nothing more. It does not present a model applicable to the whole family of seafarers worldwide, which is the biggest shortcoming of this article.
Authors' reply: Your comment is well received and text in conclusion section is amended accordingly. However, we do not agree fully with reviewer opinion. Yes, model is tested only according to the Croatian seafarers’ perceptions/attitudes, that is his limitation, clearly stated in the conclusion. Considering the fact that in present ship’s crew complement contains seafarers of various nationalities, some type of cross-cultural influence exists. To support this statement, we should consider the fact that majority of Croatian seafarers is employed at foreign companies. Furthermore, there are a few Croatian shipping companies with few ships sailing worldwide. Also, Croatian flag ships are almost non-existent. Reason for this lies in the fact that registering ships at flags of convenience enables them to employ seafarers of different nationalities. This trend is present world-wide. Modern seafarers are now working in multicultural environment and it is normal to expect some cross-cultural influence among them.
Furthermore, in order that model can be applicable to the whole family of seafarers worldwide is practically impossible. Previous studies confirmed that cultural and other differences between seafarers of different nationalities exist. This is also stated in the conclusion as the study limitation.
On the other side, applied methodology proved that model is statistically significant.
Our opinion, backed with obtained results, is that the presented model can serve as a guiding principle and can easily find its purpose not only in the maritime industry, but also in all other high-risk industries.
3. I also think that the article could be better structured. I would even recommend cutting the introductory part, as it is not interesting at all and presents already very well-known facts.
Authors' reply: Your comment is well received.
The manuscript is structured according to the journal Instruction for authors. Your recommendation for “cutting the introductory part” is not clear to us. Indeed, well known facts are stated in the introduction, but purpose of Introduction section is to provides reader with the summarized literature review of the topic addressing key issues present in the industry. We find that Introduction section is prepared according to journal instructions for authors. Final decision for this proposal should rest on the journal Editor.
4. In line 26, recently published data is mentioned. Is the already 4 years old data really new?
Authors' reply: We agree with this comment and sentence is reworded.
5. The methodology used is sound, but the results are not self-explanatory and should be elaborated further.
Authors' reply: Your comment is well received. Therefore, we can provide reviewer with summarized explanation:
Methodology used and presentation of the results in this study is according to the accepted scientific standards and API recommendations/guidelines. In particular, results from EFA analyses are summarized and presented according to Field(2009) and Hair et. (2014) recommendations. Pearson correlation analysis results are in line with accepted standards in scientific journals; i.e., strength and direction of correlations, including probability values, are presented and clearly marked. Also, the assumptions for hierarchical multiple regression analysis were tested and results of key values are presented confirming that data is valid for analysis. Finally, the results of the Hierarchical multiple regression analysis are presented in the table 3. We even went further and presented the results of the model, including the F, p, R, R2 and adjusted R2 values for each step separately. Therefore, presented results are readable and self-exploratory.
6. The chapter on data collection is not self-explanatory. The discharge of 113 answers could give the reader the impression that you wanted to adjust the results according to your expectations. If you have collected 413 completed questionnaires, then I think you have to work with that. This part is quite confusing and needs to be changed.
Authors' reply: Your comment is well received.
In line with the first part of the comment on data collection, we failed in providing additional explanations. Subsection 2.2 Data collection is amended to clarify the issue.
Yes, a total of 113 responses were discarded. During the initial screening 27 copies were discarded. The reason for discarding 27 copies is that the responses of these respondents were obvious outliers, i.e., answers to all statements were either 1 or 5 (control measures in the form of reverse coding were obviously not observed), and/or the questionnaires were returned blank or almost without answers.
The second part of the comment, quote: "The discharge of 113 answers could give the reader the impression that you wanted to adjust the results according to your expectations. If you have collected 413 completed questionnaires, then I think you have to work with that." has left us confused and it is not clear to us what the purpose of the same is or whether the reviewer is implying some kind of data manipulation.
Whatever the reason for this comment, we can provide the following summarized scientifically/statistically based explanation. In order to use data for a regression analysis, it is first necessary to ensure that the data are valid, i.e. the normality of the data must be guaranteed. This process goes through numerous stages, starting with the EFA analysis, checking the reliability of the factors, and finally the assumptions for the regression analysis must be confirmed. This process is repeated numerous times until the data is considered valid for the final step, in this case hierarchical regression analysis. The process doesn’t stop at this stage. Again, there are numerous tests which check obtained data (see subsection 3.4 Testing the assumptions). The discarded responses during the process are considered as outliers, and if not removed results can be distorted significantly.
Your suggestion to work with all the data received is also noted, but we hope that and explanations provided above are sufficient. If the reviewer finds them unsatisfactory, we can recommend cited literature (Field, 2009 and Hair et al. 2014) for further reading, which provides detailed , step by step explanations of what needs to be done to ensure normality and reliability of the data, i.e. the data validity.
7. The writing format is not exactly in line with the JMSE/MDPI Instructions for Authors (i.e. acronyms/abbreviations/initialisms should be defined when they are first cited in the text (i.e. lines 22, 46, etc.), the quality of the tables needs to be improved.
Authors' reply: Your comment is well received.
Thanks for this suggestion. Abbreviations are now stated when they first appear in the text. Regarding line 22: keyword is a keyword.
Considering the suggestion that quality of tables should be improved is unclear. If this suggestion refers to the table’s visualisation, pls note that all tables are prepared in the MS Word and we cannot change their quality.
If reviewer imply that “content” of the tables should be improved, we already provided explanation in our response addressing this issue.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I have carefully checked the revised draft titled ” The influence of shipboard safety factors on quality of safety supervision: Croatian seafarer's attitudes”.
The current version shows significant improvements and can be considered for publishing.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Reading your responses to the review, one might get the impression that they are somewhat unusual (I do not want to use a harsher term, which would certainly be more appropriate for the tone and manner in which they were written). I am saying that one should not accept only what is opportune for the authors and reject the rest that is not opportune or requires an extra effort while using a way of communication that is inappropriate for the scientific community.
Notwithstanding this, I accept the changes you have made to the article. However, in order to improve the quality of the article and the clarity of the methodology and results, I insist that (instead of unnecessary polemics with me) the following be done:
Please clarify in point 2 of your response that this is a research based on a survey of a sample of Croatian seafarers (please explain not to me but to future readers why you conducted such a survey and how this may affect the limitations of this research article). Therefore, clearly state the limitations of the research. I completely disagree with you on the guiding principles for other industries as this is not relevant to this article.
I ask you again to better structure and shorten the introduction, as this is an article and not a review, to improve the quality and clarity of the work (point 3 of your reply ).
The very unusual response to the review from point 5 needs to be appropriately inserted (in a few sentences) into the text of the paper.
Everything explained in the first part of point 6 of your reply to me, referring to the 113 answers you rejected, should be inserted into the text of the paper. Otherwise, you leave the methodology of processing the data collected in doubt and that is the only reason for my comment. I really do not see any problem in properly integrating what you wrote in the first part of your comment into the text of your paper. I also think it is necessary for you to additionally briefly explain how and in which time period your research data was collected. I would also like to point out that it is quite academic to discuss, but it is not an academic approach to instruct reviewers to study basic and further known literature on surveys and statistical data processing.
Finally, I recommend that you include a good part of your answers in the article. With this minimal extra effort, you will greatly improve your paper. Further polemics are unnecessary and cannot help to improve the quality of the work.
Kind regards,
R
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we have made new improvements to the article according your suggestions/recommendations.
Thank you for the suggestions that helped us improve the paper.
Kind regards,
Authors
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Reviewer 3 – 2nd Round
Please clarify in point 2 of your response that this is a research based on a survey of a sample of Croatian seafarers (please explain not to me but to future readers why you conducted such a survey and how this may affect the limitations of this research article).
Authors' reply: Thank you for your suggestion. Pls note that this issue was already addressed in the subsection 2.3 Survey sample: Quote: “All respondents were of Croatian nationality, n=300.“
Therefore, clearly state the limitations of the research.
Authors' reply: Thank you for suggestion. Pls note that this issue was already addressed in two occasions:
- firstly, in the subsection 2.4 Method of Data analysis: Quote: “The only limitation of the mentioned method is that the results cannot be extrapolated beyond this particular sample, i.e. in this case beyond seafarers of Croatian nationality.”
- secondly, in the last paragraph of section 5. Conclusion.
I completely disagree with you on the guiding principles for other industries as this is not relevant to this article.
Authors' reply: thank you for your suggestion. As we discussed in Section 4. Discussion; Quote, "From a practical point of view, safety supervision can be considered as the last line of defence against occupational accidents and incidents," there are numerous high-risk industries where this model can serve its purpose.
Considering the literature provided, all of the independent factors identified in this study (communication, safety training, safety compliance and safety rules and procedures) are common and in use in all high-risk industries.
To our knowledge, the proposed model has not been presented or examined in previous studies. It includes factors that are present/common in high-risk industries, it is human-centered, and therefore we believe it can serve as a guiding principle.
I ask you again to better structure and shorten the introduction, as this is an article and not a review, to improve the quality and clarity of the work (point 3 of your reply ).
Authors' reply: Thank you for your suggestion. Pls note that Introduction section was prepared according to journal Instructions for Authors, stating:
„It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work ……. Keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper. “(JMSE).
We examined the Introduction section again and can’t find any part for „cutting “because the subject matter is complex and previous results must be presented. Indeed, this is not a review paper but academic principles require that previous work should be recognized and cited. The manuscript covers/examines the most important regulations (ISM and MLC) in the shipping industry and related problems which are briefly presented. Furthermore, safety climate was proven as important part in workplace safety, i.e. respondents’ attitudes/perceptions are the key for workplace safety. Therefore, key publications/findings were briefly presented and cited.
The subsection 1.1 Shipboard Safety Factors and Safety Supervision, introduces readers (especially the scientists working outside the topic of the paper) deeper into the issue, that is, into the requirements of the ISM Code and previous related research. Again, only the key conclusions from the studies related to ISM requirements, the role of supervisors and their importance, are presented. All of the above introduces all readers to the results of previous research. Cutting them out and pretending they don't exist is certainly not in accordance with the principles of good academic work.
The very unusual response to the review from point 5 needs to be appropriately inserted (in a few sentences) into the text of the paper.
Authors' reply: Thank you for your suggestion. Subsection 2.4 is amended in line with the suggestion.
Everything explained in the first part of point 6 of your reply to me, referring to the 113 answers you rejected, should be inserted into the text of the paper. Otherwise, you leave the methodology of processing the data collected in doubt and that is the only reason for my comment. I really do not see any problem in properly integrating what you wrote in the first part of your comment into the text of your paper.
Authors' reply: Thank you for your suggestion. Subsection 2.2 Data Collection is amended with the purpose that readers can be familiar with the reasons for outlier elimination.
Considering second part of the suggestion, Subsection 2.4 Method of Data Analysis is amended and now well referenced so that the potential readers, unfamiliar with whole process, can familiarize themselves with the related process and requirements.
I also think it is necessary for you to additionally briefly explain how and in which time period your research data was collected.
Authors' reply: Thank you for your suggestion. Indeed, we missed to state time period of data collection; time period is now added. Considering the data collection process, pls note that whole process is described in the subsection 2.2 Data collection.
I would also like to point out that it is quite academic to discuss, but it is not an academic approach to instruct reviewers to study basic and further known literature on surveys and statistical data processing.
Finally, I recommend that you include a good part of your answers in the article. With this minimal extra effort, you will greatly improve your paper. Further polemics are unnecessary and cannot help to improve the quality of the work.
Authors' reply: Thank you for your suggestion.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
My previous recommendations were not considered, so I propose rejecting the article.
