A Study on the Factors Affecting Safety Behaviors and Safety Performance in the Manufacturing Sector: Job Demands-Resources Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work is valid to be published. It emphasis the role of middle managers and notes the difficult psychological factors evaluation. The analysed parameters are comprehensive.
To my mind the data has been analysed correctly, although the statistical analyses are not easy to follow.
One small item, Table 1 has a middle title No of Companies, but in the text the same numbers evaluate number of the workers. Which is correct?
Author Response
Comments 1: This work is valid to be published. It emphasis the role of middle managers and notes the difficult psychological factors evaluation. The analysed parameters are comprehensive.
To my mind the data has been analysed correctly, although the statistical analyses are not easy to follow.
One small item, Table 1 has a middle title No of Companies, but in the text the same numbers evaluate number of the workers. Which is correct?
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback and constructive comments. We appreciate your recognition of the significance of middle managers' roles and the challenges associated with evaluating psychological factors. Additionally, we acknowledge your concern regarding Table 1. We have clarified in the manuscript that "No. of Companies" refers to the number of companies included in the sample, which is 3,255. This revision ensures consistency between the table and the text.
Furthermore, we have enhanced the description of the dataset to provide a clearer explanation of its structure and relevance to our study. We have also refined the explanation of the theoretical model used in this research to improve clarity and coherence. These modifications strengthen the manuscript by ensuring a more precise presentation of the data and theoretical framework.
We appreciate your insightful comments, which have contributed to improving the clarity and rigor of our study. Please let us know if any additional revisions are needed. Thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing our work.
Thank you once again for your time and expertise.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe objective of this study was to examines the impact of workplace factors on safety behaviors and organizational safety performance among 3255 manufacturing workers, data were sourced from the 10th Occupational Safety and Health Status Survey conducted by the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute.
Regarding materials and methods and as the 10th Occupational Safety and Health Status Survey is not known to the entire scientific community, a small summary must be made by the authors of how this is constituted and what is the methodology for collecting these data.
In general, the article is written in a satisfactory way, the state-of-the-art is presented and supported by references.
The discussion and conclusion could be further developed, there is a lot of interesting data in the article.
This manuscript clearly falls within the scope of the Safety and I recommend the publication with these suggestions.
Author Response
Comments 1: The objective of this study was to examines the impact of workplace factors on safety behaviors and organizational safety performance among 3255 manufacturing workers, data were sourced from the 10th Occupational Safety and Health Status Survey conducted by the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute.
Regarding materials and methods and as the 10th Occupational Safety and Health Status Survey is not known to the entire scientific community, a small summary must be made by the authors of how this is constituted and what is the methodology for collecting these data.
In general, the article is written in a satisfactory way, the state-of-the-art is presented and supported by references.
The discussion and conclusion could be further developed, there is a lot of interesting data in the article.
This manuscript clearly falls within the scope of the Safety and I recommend the publication with these suggestions.
Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Your insightful comments have been instrumental in improving the clarity, depth, and overall quality of our study. In response, we have made substantial revisions to enhance the explanation of our data source, strengthen the connection between our findings and existing research, and further develop the discussion and conclusion sections.
To improve the transparency and comprehensibility of our dataset, we have expanded our description of the 10th Occupational Safety and Health Status Survey conducted by the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute. Given that this survey may not be widely familiar to the broader scientific community, we now provide a more detailed explanation of its structure, target population, and data collection methodology. Specifically, we clarify that data were obtained through structured in-person interviews with safety and health managers or business owners, supplemented by electronic questionnaires designed to ensure consistency and accuracy. These revisions offer greater transparency regarding the data source and enhance the reliability of our study’s empirical foundation.
Furthermore, we have refined the discussion section to establish a clearer link between our findings and prior research. We explicitly compare our results with existing literature to demonstrate how our study aligns with or extends previous work, particularly concerning the impact of job demands on safety behaviors and the moderating role of middle managers’ safety competencies. These revisions reinforce the theoretical foundation of our study and underscore its contribution to occupational safety research. Additionally, we have expanded our discussion of the practical implications of our findings by providing a more detailed analysis of how middle managers’ safety competencies function as a critical resource in mitigating workplace risks. In particular, we emphasize that targeted interventions at the middle management level are necessary to bridge the gap between organizational safety policies and the realities of frontline safety practices, particularly in hazardous and physically demanding environments.
Recognizing the importance of a comprehensive discussion, we have enriched the conclusion by further elaborating on the broader implications of our findings. We highlight the necessity of adopting a holistic approach to safety management that incorporates both physical and psychological job demands. Additionally, we have provided a more detailed reflection on the study’s limitations and suggested directions for future research, particularly emphasizing the need for further investigation into the role of psychological stressors in workplace safety. Our findings recommend that mental stress may require distinct intervention strategies beyond traditional safety competencies, and we advocate for further research to explore effective approaches in this area.
We greatly appreciate your endorsement of our study’s relevance to the scope of "Safety" and your recommendation for publication. Your constructive suggestions have significantly contributed to heightening the manuscript’s clarity, coherence, and impact. We hope revisions effectively address your concerns and further enhance the quality of our work.
Thank you once again for your valuable time and consideration.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study provided is very interesting and the results can be useful to a great audience. In order to improve the readability of your paper I would suggest the following improvements:
1) In the introduction section you should provide more references for similar works performed worldwide. Moreover, some more details and potential references on the JD-R model are necessary since not all readers are familiar with it.
2) In section 2 - Table 1 do you refer to the number of companies? I though 3255 was the number of the responders
3) In section 3 where the results are presented please define and provide explanations about Model 1-4. Moreover, for readability easiness the tables should appear in one page and not split between two
4) I am also a little confused with the statement at section 3.3.1 that "in hazardous work environments a stronger safety attitude from the management is associated with lower worker safety behavior". Although this may be supported by the data the explanation given in the discussion section seams controversial. Please check and explain better or correct.
5) Last but not least somewhere in the text (can go in the discussions section) the limitations of the study should be reported and some comments whether this research design can be applicable to other sectors or outside your country
Thank you
Author Response
Comments 1: The study provided is very interesting and the results can be useful to a great audience. In order to improve the readability of your paper I would suggest the following improvements:
1) In the introduction section you should provide more references for similar works performed worldwide. Moreover, some more details and potential references on the JD-R model are necessary since not all readers are familiar with it.
2) In section 2 - Table 1 do you refer to the number of companies? I though 3255 was the number of the responders
3) In section 3 where the results are presented please define and provide explanations about Model 1-4. Moreover, for readability easiness the tables should appear in one page and not split between two
4) I am also a little confused with the statement at section 3.3.1 that "in hazardous work environments a stronger safety attitude from the management is associated with lower worker safety behavior". Although this may be supported by the data the explanation given in the discussion section seams controversial. Please check and explain better or correct.
5) Last but not least somewhere in the text (can go in the discussions section) the limitations of the study should be reported and some comments whether this research design can be applicable to other sectors or outside your country
Thank you.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback and insightful suggestions. We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Below, we have provided our responses to each of the points you raised.
First, we acknowledge your suggestion to include additional references to similar works conducted worldwide and to provide more detailed information on the JD-R (Job Demands-Resources) model. In response, we have revised the introduction to incorporate relevant studies from diverse contexts, which helps better situate our research within the broader academic discourse. Furthermore, we have expanded our explanation of the JD-R model, emphasizing its relevance and application in safety management. This addition ensures that readers who may not be familiar with the model will have a clearer understanding of its application in the context of our study.
Regarding Table 1, we appreciate you pointing out the ambiguity related to the number of companies referenced. We can confirm that the number "3255" refers to the total number of respondents in our study, not the number of companies. To eliminate any confusion, we have revised both the table and the corresponding text to clarify this distinction.
In Section 3, we also value your suggestion to provide a more thorough explanation of Models 1-4. We have added detailed definitions and clarifications for each model, which we believe will enhance the overall clarity of our results. Additionally, we have reformatted the tables to ensure that they appear on a single page for better readability, as recommended.
We understand your concern regarding the statement in Section 3.3.1, which reads, "In hazardous work environments, a stronger safety attitude from the management is associated with lower worker safety behavior." After reviewing this section, we agree that the explanation in the discussion seemed inconsistent with the data presented. We have now clarified this point and provided a more coherent explanation in the discussion section. Furthermore, we have addressed how this finding might be context-dependent and discussed potential reasons for this observed relationship, supporting our interpretation with appropriate citations.
Finally, as per your suggestion, we have included a dedicated section on the limitations of our study. In this section, we honestly reflect on the scope of our research, discussing the limitations of our cross-sectional design, the focus on manufacturing environments, and the use of self-reported data. We have also commented on the applicability of our research design to other sectors and regions, proposing directions for future research that can help address these limitations and broaden the generalizability of our findings.
We hope that these revisions adequately address your concerns and contribute to the improvement of our manuscript. Once again, we truly appreciate your constructive feedback, and we look forward to any further comments you may have.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for addressing all points raised in the previous review. The paper can be published as it is currently. Keep up the good work and write more papers!
