Perceived Working Conditions and Intention to Adopt Digital Safety Training in High-Risk Productive Sectors: An Exploratory Study in Manufacturing and Agriculture in Northwest Italy
, Lucia Vigoroso 2,*,†, Margherita Micheletti Cremasco 1,* and Federica Caffaro 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The manuscript was reviewed and the revision points can be seen in the attached file.
Sincerely Yours.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the Reviewer for their comments. Please see the attachment for detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article examines the perception of working conditions, risks associated with the use of machinery, and the willingness of agricultural workers and manufacturing workers in northwestern Italy to adopt digital devices for safety training. The authors emphasize that agriculture and manufacturing in Italy are sectors with the highest rates of work-related injuries and fatal accidents. They highlight the potential of digital safety training in promoting safer workplace behaviors. The study also addressed the impact of previous injuries and experiences with digital technologies. The main goal was to lay the groundwork for the development of an innovative and engaging digital safety training tool that would use an ergonomic, user-centered approach.
Potential weaknesses and limitations of the article are:
- The study focused on a relatively small sample, consisting of 40 agricultural workers and 39 manufacturing workers from a specific region in Italy (Piedmont). This limited number of participants restricts the ability to generalize the results to the entire workforce in Italy or Europe in these sectors.
- The sample of participants is entirely male. While the authors acknowledge that these industries are predominantly male, the exclusion of women means that the results may not fully reflect the perceptions and preferences of the growing proportion of women in these fields.
- Agricultural workers had significantly lower levels of education compared to manufacturing workers. This difference may have influenced some of the results, particularly those related to the perception of system failure as a cause of accidents. It is recommended to be cautious when interpreting the results associated with this variable.
The main shortcoming of the paper is the lack of scientific contribution that is absent from it. The paper contains too extensive research (94 references), which in the end seems more like a research paper than an original paper. The study is exploratory in nature and focuses on quantitative data obtained through questionnaires. However, this approach may not capture the depth of understanding that qualitative research could bring. The survey suggests that the results may not be fully representative of the entire workforce in agriculture and manufacturing, and at the same time points to areas that would be suitable for improvement in future research. It is necessary to clearly formulate the scientific contribution in the conclusion. I suggest reducing the number of citations so that the paper doesn't appear like a literature review.
Author Response
We thank the Reviewer for their comments. Please see the attachment for detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, I do appreciate your study, but I do have several concerns regarding its value. You are referring to agricultural workers in general, but the sample seems to only include vineyard workers. The working environment of these workers should be described. The same is valid for the manufacturing workers. Despite the fact of the high incidences of illnesses and accidents the sectors are quite different. I am doubtful if it makes sense to put these two sectors into one paper. Your sample size is very small.
I have added a document with specific comments.
Kind regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The English needs to be improved.
Author Response
We thank the Reviewer for their comments. Please see the attachment for detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The revised manuscript was investigated, and it was seen that the suggestions was considered. Thank you for your valuable efforts in a critical subject in terms of occupational health and safety.
Also, it is suggested that the points seen below should be considered again.
Page 1 - Line 35 - "......, mining construction, agriculture, ...." should be changed as "....., mining, construction, agriculture, ...."
Page 5 - Line 190 - Which method was used to determine the numbers of
questionnarie or which main idea was considered? Should be supported with the literature.
Sincerely Yours.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe comments have been adequately incorporated. I agree to the publication of this version of the article.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the changes.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are some typos and small mistakes that should be eliminated.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The revised version was reviewed. It was seen that the comments were considered.
Thanks for your efforts.
Sincerely Yours.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for adressing the comments.
