Perceived Factors Affecting the Implementation of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems in the South African Construction Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study is about the factors affecting the OHS management system in the construction industry of South Africa. The study cannot be recommended for publication due to some of the following points.

1. Applying something to the South African context is no novelty, until and unless its construction industry has some unique dimension. The use of OHS, risk, and PDCA does not provide much insight.
2. The sample size is insufficient “The response from the number of distributed questionnaires (114) was (50) which is (44%)…”
3. The analysis and discussion are rather weak too.
4. Only one reference from 2022 and 2023.
5. The format/file conversion has resulted in “Error! Reference source…”
6. The literature review needed improvement. Also, some basic text of risk management discussion parts in paragraph (lines 106-141).
7. The conclusion part was not properly written and does not convey useful findings for the readers.

Overall English language is fine.

Author Response

Please see the attached file with our rebuttal

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, read the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file for our rebuttal

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This article ” Factors affecting the implementation of Occupational Health and Safety Management System in the South African Construction Industry” is interesting and meaningful. However, some issues should be corrected and clarified before publication .

 1. In this work, are there 50 or 90 test subjects? The questionnaire was filled out by 90 subjects. However, the number of subjects in Table 1 is 50. If there are only 50 people, please describe the feasibility of statistical analysis.

2. Could you describe the reference basis for the relevant questions in this questionnaire?

3. Please list relevant similar studies to compare with the results of this work.

4. In table 2, the mean value of Internal factors “Senior management commitment and support” is wrong.

5. Perhaps the author could create a statistical function to illustrate which are the main influencing factors?

Author Response

Please see attached file for our rebuttal.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript deals with a very interesting topic in the field of Occupational Health and Safety. In particular, the authors look for the main indicators that, according to the opinion of various business executives, influence the implementation of the Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS) in the construction industry in South Africa. In addition, the authors aspire to "formulate a framework for the implementation of OHSMS using the Plan Do Check Act method by integrating the risk management plan". Although I am not an expert in the field of OHSMS, I believe that the topic discussed in this manuscript is of the utmost importance both for the scientific field and for business executives and mainly for all employees. I also believe that it is of interest to the readers of your International Journal and meets the requirements of the Safety. However, I believe that it needs a variety of methodological interventions to be able to be improved in order to be accepted. That is why I urge the authors to respond to my suggestions and I will be more than happy to re-evaluate their improvement interventions.

Title

“Factors affecting the implementation…”, In order that you are accurate, the title should change to Perceived factors affecting…

Introduction

Please double check your references, e.g., some references cannot be found or, you refer to an old work in Proceedings for the critical methods of the “Total Quality Approach (TQA), and the Plan Do Check Act (PDCA) approach [34]”. (Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering, Istanbul, 705 Turkey, 19–25 June 2005 (pp. 1391–1396.) etc.

It is suggested to check for recent published papers in international journals.

I believe that the insertion of some relevant subtitles (e.g., Definition, Background implementation Factors of the OHSMS, etc.), would increase the readability of the paper.

Similarly, I suggest the insertion of some relevant research questions and work hypothesis, just after the description of your aim.

Material and Methods

“A mixed-method research approach that involved both quantitative and qualitative methods was used”. Both methods should be described in separated paragraphs with subtitles.

You should state how did you assess the “internal and external factors”. Similarly, act for the “PDCA method”.

Once more, I suggest that you insert subtitles and explicative text where you will give information on:

Design

Participants

Instruments

Procedure and

Statistics or Analysis Plan

In those paragraphs information in detail is needed; additionally, notions like “stratified random sampling method”, “quantitative data”, “reliability of the data collected”, “The ranking of both internal and external factors”, etc., should be very well described and explained.

Results

“The findings of this study are from both quantitative and qualitative analysis”. Explain in detail, please.

“The dependent variable, in this case, was the PDCA”. Information on this variable is needed.

In Table 4. Regression analysis of PDCA there are various independent variables, “the implementation factors” which however you do not describe in the section of methodology.

I am sorry but I could not follow the section “3.3.1. Formulation of the Risk Management Plan”, since I could not realise where it comes the information provided in “Table 5. Methods used to formulate a risk management plan”.

Authors are also advised to check whether the reliability analysis in the total of the questions is correct.  

Author Response

Please see attached file for our rebuttal

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the revised manuscript and clarification. I suggest the following minor improvements.

·      Correct Error! Reference source not found in lines 258, 336, 442, 632.

·      Line 97 it is better to re write to introduce study by researcher names and location.

·      Check  manuscript for typos e.eg line 270, also check formatting e.g. lines 686-688 and for section at line 715.

·      Line 312: Avoid one-line paragraph.

·      Line 183-200, please remove repeating information.

·      Rename section 2 with some more appropriate heading.

·      Caption for framework figure needs to be placed correctly.

·      Please adjust conclusions section

English language is fine.

Author Response

Thank for drawing our attention to issues listed in your review

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

First and foremost, I would like to commend you on your comprehensive and insightful study on the implementation of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems (OHSMS) in the South African construction industry. Your research addresses a significant gap in the field and provides valuable contributions to both academic and practical aspects of occupational health and safety.

Strengths of the Study:

1. Originality: Your focus on the South African construction industry, a sector, and region less explored in existing literature, adds a fresh perspective to the field.

2. Relevance: The study is relevant, considering the ongoing challenges in implementing effective OHSMS in the construction industry.

3. Methodological Rigor: The use of a structured quantitative approach and the employment of statistical tools like SPSS for data analysis demonstrate methodological robustness.

Areas for Improvement:

1. Presentation Clarity: While the data and findings are compelling, there are opportunities to enhance clarity. Consider simplifying complex sentences and using bullet points or numbered lists for lengthy discussions. This would make the paper more reader-friendly and emphasize key points more effectively.

2. Consistency in Terminology: Ensure consistent use of key terms and concepts throughout the paper. Consistent terminology aids in reader comprehension and maintains the focus of the study.

3. Minimize Redundancy: There are instances where information is repeated. Streamlining the content to avoid redundancy will make the arguments more impactful and keep the reader engaged.

Suggestions for Future Research:

1. Comparative Analysis: Future studies could benefit from a comparative approach, perhaps contrasting the South African context with other developing countries to provide a broader understanding of the challenges and strategies in OHSMS implementation.

2. Qualitative Insights: Incorporating qualitative research methods could offer more profound insights into the experiences and perceptions of professionals regarding OHSMS, complementing the quantitative data.

In summary, your study makes a significant contribution to the field of occupational health and safety. With some refinement in presentation and consistency, it can serve as a pivotal resource for practitioners and researchers alike. Keep up the excellent work, and I look forward to seeing your continued contributions to this important field.

Best regards.

To improve clarity and accuracy in the presentation of the article, minor adjustments could be made in the following aspects:

1. Fluency and Consistency in Writing: Throughout the paper, there are some sentences that could be clearer and more direct. For example, in the summary, the sentence "Earlier studies have shown that implementing an Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS) ensures a reduction in accidents on-site. However, many challenges arise during the implementation of the OHSMS" could be restructured for better flow.

2. Consistent Use of Punctuation and Grammatical Structure: In some sections, the use of commas and other punctuation could be improved to clarify meaning and facilitate reading. For example, in the Introduction section, some long sentences could benefit from better punctuation to separate ideas clearly.

3. Clarity in the Presentation of Data and Results: Some tables and results could be presented more clearly. For example, in Section B, where internal and external factors are discussed, the presentation of the data and how it relates to the conclusions could be more direct and easier to follow.

4. Consistency in Terminology and Key Concepts: Ensure that key terms and concepts are used consistently throughout the document. This includes the definition and application of technical terms, such as those related to risk management methods and OHSMS. The section on integrating risk management into the OHSMS uses several terms and concepts, such as "risk management," "iterative process," and "project life cycle." Ensuring consistency in how these terms are defined and used throughout the document is crucial. For example, if "risk management" is defined one way in one section, that definition should be maintained throughout the document. In this case, clarity in the definition of "risk management" and its consistent application in the context of OHSMS is critical to the reader's understanding.

5. Minimize Redundancies: Reduce repetition of information that has already been presented. For example, if certain data or concepts are explained in detail in one section, it is not necessary to repeat them in their entirety in subsequent sections, unless it is to make a specific point. In some sections of the document, there is a tendency to repeat information. For example, the importance of effective OHSMS implementation and associated challenges are mentioned several times in the document. While it is relevant to reiterate key points, doing so too much can become redundant. Reducing these repetitions and focusing on presenting new information or perspectives in each section could improve the flow of the document. 

These adjustments would help improve the overall readability of the document, making it more accessible and understandable to readers.

Author Response

Thank for drawing our attention to issues listed in your review

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

No comments

Author Response

No changes required

Reviewer 4 Report

no further comments

Author Response

No changes required

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

It be more appropriate to first summarize the key findings in Conclusions section. In its current format the Conclusion section directly starts with Future Research. Perhaps start with contribution by making it more quantitative and adding key finds. 

- Limitations section need to be improved.

Author Response

Rebuttal is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Your recent revisions have significantly enhanced the clarity and coherence of your manuscript. The improvements in the English language use are commendable, ensuring that the academic merit of your work is clearly conveyed. Your attention to the reviewers' feedback, particularly in refining the technical aspects of language and presentation, is much appreciated. This level of diligence bodes well for the manuscript's impact in its field.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have made the required changes.

Overall English language is ok