Situational Awareness Errors in Forklift Logistics Operations: A Multiphase Eye-Tracking and Think-Aloud Approach
, Jaime Mora-Vargas 1, Martha Caro 3 and David Ernesto Salinas-Navarro 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is well written and supported by a comprehensive literature review in which research gap was identified. Novelty of the paper was also well outlined. There are a few comments to improve the paper:
· In the Abstract the authors stated that RTA was used as a method for validating causal factors underlying errors. To support this validation, it is suggested that the authors add hypotheses of the research (paper) based on the underlying theories presented in the background.
· To follow the hypothesis testing, please outline the experimental design in the Materials and Method: any control group, experimental groups, any randomization, sampling plan (in the Ethnography and process mapping stage, Eye tracking stage, pilot test), and data analysis for theory testing.
· In 4.1. Phase 1: Ethnography and mapping of the process, please provide list of tasks for 1. Load Verification and 3. Transporting goods.
· In Phase 2: Visual attention and gaze patterns with Eye-tracking, please add rationale or justification for the length of eye movements 190 minutes. Please show the grouping of the 18-step process to complete an OT into 6 tasks to complement Table 3.
· In the Discussion or Conclusion, please add the results of hypotheses testing of causal factors underlying errors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your valuable comments and feedback, which have contributed to the enhancement and enrichment of our work.
Please, see the attached document for detailed point-by-point responses to your commentary.
Regards,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article extensively studies the forklift operators' situational awareness using a multimodal analysis approach. Overall is a good and interesting study.
The abstract is well explained. most of the required information is well-written.
The introduction explains the problem statement as well as the research motivation accordingly. It was followed by article organization.
The literature review is sufficient for the current study. The research method is well structured and aligned with the findings. The overall data presentation is acceptable.
Some suggestions before revision are as follows:
1. The use of abbreviation. Currently is not consistent.
2. The writing format for citations is varied. Please refer to the correct one.
3. Typo error for Table 7. Twice for no 4 for numbering.
The rest are acceptable.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your valuable comments and feedback, which have contributed to the enhancement and enrichment of our work.
Please, see the attached document for detailed point-by-point responses to your commentary.
Regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper falls within the scope of journal Logistics and represents good performed study. The authors are familiar with the topics covered in the paper. The manuscript has potential but should be improved in order to be considered for publication.
My comments are as follows:
- The title of the paper isn't well. Should be more concise and shorter. Also, does multimodal approach can be replaced with a multiphase approach? Your paper covers the topic Logistics and a very related topic is transport, so transport can be multimodal. My recommendation is that you rephrase it to avoid confusion among potential readers.
- The paper is also too long, please think to make it shorter.
The introduction and background sections are well-written. However, in the introduction, you should elaborate on contributions in more dept detail, as well novelties and research questions.
The technical aspect of the paper should be improved, also. For example, in some parts of the paper, you have unnecessary blank spacing.
- Please provide details how you have created Table 1 inclusion and exclusion criteria.
- A diagram of the research flow for the whole paper will be useful for readers.
- Figure 5 can't consist of tables. You should create smart shapes or show them in separate tables but currently isn't appropriate.
- Figure 6 also can't be shown as a Figure than a Table.
- The same situation is with Figures 8 and 17.
- Figure 13 isn't readable.
- Tables should be better explained.
- Please include the following reference: Dabic-Miletic, S. (2024). Benefits and Challenges of Implementing Autonomous Technology for Sustainable Material Handling in Industrial Processes. J. Ind Intell., 2(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.56578/jii020101
- Page 9, you wrote "An example of the interview is provided in Annex 1.", but I can't find annex.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your valuable comments and feedback, which have contributed to the enhancement and enrichment of our work.
Please, see the attached document for detailed point-by-point responses to your commentary.
Regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors made an effort to improve the paper. They adopted all my suggestions and the paper can be accepted in this version.
