From Perception to Practice: Identifying and Ranking Human Factors Driving Unsafe Industrial Behaviors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A well designed and developed paper, with some interesting outcomes.  Here are some comments: 

1. I perceived the abstract as suggesting workers were to be blamed for incidents, rather than work within the management system endorsed by the senior leadership team, i.e. as specified by ISO45001.  It may improve the communication of the research if the authors include a comment acknowledging a systems and leadership approach, and indicate the scope of this research is individuals.
2. Line 122: workers had at least one occupational accident.  How did you identify and recruit these people?  What is an "occupational accident"?  Was there a type of accident which was more represented than others?   
3. In section 2.1, why were these participant groups selected?
4. Use the same numbering and description for the method stages throughout the paper. 
5. The term "Health and Safety Executive specialists" needs defining, as it is not a common job title.
6. Where was the data collected?  Does the culture of the country the survey took part in contribute to the results? 
7. Were the surveys collected in english or translated?  How was this done?
8. What was the nationality and natural language of participants?
9. Line 171: Check the wording "we were review our codes" does not make sense.  
10. Line 173 you use the first person, rather than consistently use the 3rd
11. Line 186: review the wording after "where"
12. Figure 3: what is "unqualified"
13. Table 4: the term "Mulishness" is an unusual term.  Why was this term selected?  Is there a reference to it definition and usage?  Also "self-display". Maybe some definition or illustration 
14. Table 4: What is the breakdown of responses between participants categories ie: workers and professors?
15. Which category of workers are quoted in 3.3.1 etc.  Are there differences between different categories of participants?  It would be interesting to add a unique identifier to the quotes.
16. Line 418: what findings?
17. Line 445: What is "proper" training and education?  Similarly, achieving a sustainable outcome of behaviour change is challenging, and, whilst it can be achieved with "effective" training...how do we achieve "effective"? 
18. Line 469: Interesting results.  Much of the development of "effective" training depends on the culture of the organisations, and how the training program (i.e. coaching, mentoring, supervision etc) is delivered..  Some of the information contained in this research could help with this, but more is needed to respond to this.
19. A comment in the discussion on the use of steel workers, university professors and HSE people as representation of others. 
20. The participants appeared to be well qualified...50% had a degree.  How does this compare to the population of people who have incidents? 
21. No female workers took part.  Half the HSE people were female.  What is the significance of this?

Author Response

 Comment1: I perceived the abstract as suggesting workers were to be blamed for incidents, rather than work within the management system endorsed by the senior leadership team, i.e. as specified by ISO45001.  It may improve the communication of the research if the authors include a comment acknowledging a systems and leadership approach, and indicate the scope of this research is individuals.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In accordance with the recommendation, the abstract has been revised to more explicitly acknowledge the influence of organizational and system-level factors (including leadership and ISO 45001), while clarifying that the present study specifically centers on individual-level determinants. The revised statements are highlighted in the abstract section for ease of review. The relevant modifications can be found on page 1, lines 13–17 of the revised manuscript. In addition, all responses to the reviewer’s comments have been clearly marked in blue throughout the manuscript to ensure transparent tracking of the revisions. However, due to some overlap in addressing comments from different reviewers, certain revisions may appear in other colors where they correspond to responses provided for other reviewers.

Comment2: Line 122: workers had at least one occupational accident.  How did you identify and recruit these people?  What is an "occupational accident"?  Was there a type of accident which was more represented than others? 

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. The Methods section has been revised to clarify the identification and recruitment of participants. Workers were selected through a review of official personnel accident records maintained by the company’s HSE department. Only employees with at least one registered occupational accident were included, with “occupational accident” defined as an event resulting in a minimum of three workdays lost due to injury (according to the Social Security Law of Iran). This ensured that all participants had direct personal experience of workplace incidents, even if they had no prior scientific training in occupational safety. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. The relevant modifications can be found on page 4, lines 157–161 of the revised manuscript.

Comment3: In section 2.1, why were these participant groups selected?

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important observation. The participant groups—workers, HSE specialists, and university professors—were purposefully selected to capture a comprehensive and multi-perspective understanding of the factors influencing unsafe behaviors in industrial settings. Workers provide first-hand experiential insights into daily operational risks; HSE specialists contribute professional expertise in safety management and regulatory compliance; and academic experts offer analytical and theoretical perspectives. This triangulated sampling strategy enhances the depth and validity of the findings by integrating practical, professional, and scholarly viewpoints. The relevant modifications can be found on page 4, lines 142–147 of the revised manuscript.

Comment4: Use the same numbering and description for the method stages throughout the paper. 

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. In response, a comprehensive revision has been conducted to ensure that all method stages are consistently numbered and described throughout the manuscript. Step numbers and corresponding titles have been harmonized across the Methods section, Results, Figures, and Tables to enhance clarity, coherence, and readability. Please refer to the highlighted revisions in the manuscript for the updated and consistent presentation of all methodological stages.

Comment5: The term "Health and Safety Executive specialists" needs defining, as it is not a common job title.

Response: Thank you for this helpful observation. We agree that the original phrase “Health and Safety Executive specialists” may not be a commonly recognized job title for all readers. To avoid ambiguity, we have replaced the term throughout the manuscript with “HSE experts” and added an explicit definition in the Methods section. The relevant modifications can be found on page 4, lines 142–147 of the revised manuscript.

Comment6: Where was the data collected?  Does the culture of the country the survey took part in contribute to the results? 

Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. The data for this study were collected in 2024 from employees working in the steel industry, with all participants recruited from industrial sites located in Isfahan Province, Iran. The sampling frame, setting characteristics, and participant inclusion criteria are now clearly described in the Methods section, where we specify that only personnel meeting the predefined eligibility criteria were included in the study.

Regarding the role of culture, we fully agree with the reviewer that cultural context can influence workers’ safety perceptions, reporting behavior, and responses to survey items. We acknowledge this in the revised manuscript and clarify that the findings should be interpreted within the cultural and organizational context in which the study was conducted.

Specifically, in the Limitations section, we have added text noting that the results reflect data collected in Iran and may be shaped by cultural characteristics of the country—such as hierarchical workplace relations, communication norms, and attitudes toward authority—which may differ from those in other national contexts. Therefore, caution is warranted when generalizing these findings to populations outside similar cultural and industrial settings. The relevant modifications can be found on page 4, lines 142–143 and page 16, lines 560-568 of the revised manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer’s observation, which helped improve the clarity and contextual transparency of the study.

Comment7: Were the surveys collected in english or translated?  How was this done?

Response: Thank you for this important comment. All stages of this study, including survey administration, interviews, and Delphi rounds, were conducted in Persian, which is the native language of the participants. To ensure the manuscript could be disseminated internationally, all materials, responses, and findings were subsequently translated from Persian into English.

The translation process followed a rigorous approach to maintain conceptual and linguistic equivalence:

Initial translation: The original Persian responses and instruments were translated into English by bilingual experts familiar with occupational health and safety terminology.

Review and harmonization: Translations were reviewed by a second independent bilingual expert to ensure clarity, accuracy, and consistency.

Validation: The translated English version was cross-checked against the original Persian materials to confirm that the intended meaning and nuances were preserved.

This procedure ensured that the English version of the data accurately reflects the participants’ original responses in Persian while maintaining conceptual fidelity, enabling international readership and comprehension.

Comment8: What was the nationality and natural language of participants?

Response: Please refer to the response provided for Comment 7.

Comment9: Line 171: Check the wording "we were review our codes" does not make sense.  

Response: Thank you for pointing out this language issue. We agree that the original phrasing “we were review our codes” is grammatically incorrect and unclear. In the revised manuscript, this sentence has been corrected for clarity and accuracy. The corrected version now reads:

“We carefully reviewed and refined our codes to ensure consistency and rigor in the data analysis process.” The relevant modifications can be found on page 5, lines 204–206 of the revised manuscript.

Comment10: Line 173 you use the first person, rather than consistently use the 3^rd

Response: Thank you for this observation. We agree that maintaining a consistent third-person or passive voice is important for formal scientific writing. The original sentence:

“This process helped us to summarize and account for all the important data within the transcripts.”

has been revised to a third-person, objective construction in the updated manuscript:

“This process helped summarize and account for all the important data within the transcripts.”

The relevant modifications can be found on page 5, lines 207–208 of the revised manuscript.

Comment11: Line 186: review the wording after "where"

Response: Thank you for this comment. We agree that the original wording following “where” was unclear. In the revised manuscript, the sentence has been carefully rephrased for grammatical accuracy and clarity. The corrected sentence now reads:

“Selective coding is the final stage of Grounded Theory Method, where a central category or core variable is identified and systematically connected to other categories in a logical manner.”

This revision ensures the sentence is clear, grammatically correct, and accurately reflects the process of selective coding in GTM. The relevant modifications can be found on page 6, lines 220–221 of the revised manuscript.

Comment12: Figure 3: what is "unqualified"

Response: Thank you for this comment. To improve clarity and avoid ambiguity, we have replaced the term “unqualified” with “Individual Competencies” in Figure 3. This revision more accurately reflects the intended meaning, emphasizing the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for safe and effective performance. The necessary corrections have been applied to the figure and its legend to ensure consistency with the conceptual framework of the study.

Comment13: Table 4: the term "Mulishness" is an unusual term.  Why was this term selected?  Is there a reference to it definition and usage?  Also "self-display". Maybe some definition or illustration 

Response: Thank you for raising this point. We chose the term “Mulishness” deliberately because it captures a very specific nuance of intransigent stubbornness or obstinate adherence, which aligns with how participants in our study perceived this behavior in the safety context. According to Merriam‑Webster, "mulishness" denotes a “steadfast adherence to an opinion, purpose, or course of action,” often despite reason or persuasion.

 This definition matches the conceptual meaning drawn from our data, where some individuals refuse to change their safety-related practices even when confronted with logical argument or evidence.

Regarding “self‑display”, this term refers to how individuals present or manage their behavior and image in social (or organizational) settings. It is closely related to the broader concept of self‑presentation or impression management, which has been widely studied in social psychology.

 In organizational behavior research, individuals may tailor their expressive behavior, appearance, or reported attitudes to influence how others view them. This concept is consistent with “self‑display” as used in our table, reflecting participants’ tendency to display particular competencies or behaviors consciously in order to shape others’ perceptions.By retaining these terms, we preserve the conceptual richness uncovered in our grounded analysis and maintain fidelity to participants’ own expressions and the theoretical framing of their behaviors. Nonetheless, to clarify for readers, we have added brief definitions for “Mulishness” and “Self‑display” in the footnote of Table 4, referencing the definitions cited above.

Comment14: Table 4: What is the breakdown of responses between participants categories ie: workers and professors?

Response: Thank you for this important comment. During the study, we ensured that all participant categories—including workers, occupational health and safety specialists, and academic experts—were adequately represented in the data collection. The findings presented in Table 4 thus reflect contributions from all groups, ensuring that the identified behaviors and traits are grounded in the perspectives of the diverse participant pool.

However, it is important to note that the primary objective of this study was to develop a comprehensive conceptual framework rather than to compare responses across participant groups. Therefore, the study did not aim to statistically analyze differences between workers, specialists, or professors. While a breakdown of responses by participant category was considered during data analysis to verify the consistency of patterns across groups, no formal comparison between groups was performed, as this was beyond the scope of the current study.

Comment15: Which category of workers are quoted in 3.3.1 etc.  Are there differences between different categories of participants?  It would be interesting to add a unique identifier to the quotes.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We fully acknowledge that including a breakdown of quotes or analyzing differences between participant categories could provide additional insights. However, we intentionally chose not to include such a comparison because the primary objective of this study was to develop a comprehensive conceptual framework based on the collective perspectives of all participants. Examining inter-group differences was beyond the scope of the current study.

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment and believe that the manuscript, as revised, accurately reflects the study’s goals and the collective contributions of all participants.

Comment16: Line 418: what findings?

Response: Thank you for this comment. We agree that the phrase “our findings” could be clarified. In this context, “our findings” refers specifically to the results of the present study regarding participants’ risk perception and its influence on unsafe behaviors in high-risk industrial environments. These findings indicate that when individuals perceive risks as low, they are more likely to engage in unsafe actions, which is consistent with the theoretical framework and empirical evidence discussed earlier.

To improve clarity, we have revised the sentence in the manuscript as follows:

“The results of this study, which indicate that low risk perception can lead to unsafe behaviors, align completely with the previous literature.”

This revision makes explicit which findings are being referenced and eliminates any ambiguity for the reader. The relevant modifications can be found on page 14, lines 461–462 of the revised manuscript.

Comment17: Line 445: What is "proper" training and education?  Similarly, achieving a sustainable outcome of behaviour change is challenging, and, whilst it can be achieved with "effective" training...how do we achieve "effective"? 

Response: Thank you for this insightful comment. In the manuscript, the term “proper training and education” refers to structured programs designed to provide employees with the necessary knowledge, skills, and competencies to identify hazards, assess risks accurately, and engage in safe behaviors. These programs are grounded in best practices of occupational health and safety training and are tailored to the specific context of the workplace and the hazards present.

The term “effective training” refers to training that not only imparts knowledge but also facilitates behavioral change and improves safety performance. Achieving effectiveness typically involves:

Interactive and participatory learning methods, such as hands-on exercises, simulations, and group discussions.

Context-specific content that aligns with actual workplace risks and employee tasks.

Continuous reinforcement and feedback, ensuring that learned skills are retained and applied over time.

Evaluation and assessment, to monitor improvements in knowledge, risk perception, and safe practices.

These strategies are supported by the literature on occupational safety and health education, which demonstrates that properly designed and delivered training can significantly reduce unsafe behaviors and improve safety outcomes (e.g., Burke et al., 2006; Salas et al., 2012).

Comment18: Line 469: Interesting results.  Much of the development of "effective" training depends on the culture of the organisations, and how the training program (i.e. coaching, mentoring, supervision etc) is delivered..  Some of the information contained in this research could help with this, but more is needed to respond to this.

Response: Thank you for your comment. While the study did not empirically examine training delivery or organizational influences, the findings provide a clear foundation for designing effective, evidence-based training programs. By prioritizing risk awareness, safety-related skills, and contextual factors, organizations can develop structured interventions—such as coaching, mentoring, and supervision—that are targeted, relevant, and more likely to achieve sustainable behavior change.

Comment19: A comment in the discussion on the use of steel workers, university professors and HSE people as representation of others. 

Response: Thank you for this important comment. The selection of steel workers, HSE experts, and university professors as study participants was carefully considered to ensure a comprehensive representation of perspectives relevant to workplace safety in industrial settings.

Steel workers were included as they directly experience operational hazards and unsafe conditions in the workplace, providing firsthand insights into practical challenges and behavioral patterns.

HSE experts contributed expertise in risk management, safety procedures, and regulatory compliance, ensuring that the study captured professional and applied perspectives on safety behaviors.

University professors added a scientific and analytical perspective, reflecting current research knowledge and theoretical understanding of risk perception and safety behavior.

By integrating these three groups, the study balances practical experience, professional expertise, and academic insight, allowing the conceptual framework to be grounded in both empirical and theoretical foundations. This multi-perspective approach strengthens the validity and robustness of the findings while capturing a diverse range of insights.

It should be noted, however, that the study focuses on a specific industrial context within Isfahan, Iran, and while the participant categories provide a meaningful cross-section, the findings may not be fully generalizable to other industries or cultural contexts. This limitation is acknowledged in the manuscript.

Overall, the combination of these participant groups was intentionally designed to ensure that the study reflects the collective experience and knowledge of relevant stakeholders, providing a solid foundation for the development of evidence-based safety interventions.

Comment20: The participants appeared to be well qualified...50% had a degree.  How does this compare to the population of people who have incidents? 

Response: Thank you for this important comment. In our study, the participants represented a diverse range of educational backgrounds across different roles:

Workers: all 20 participants had a high school education.

HSE specialists: 7 held a bachelor’s degree and 5 a master’s degree.

Professors: all 8 participants held a PhD.

This distribution reflects the role-specific requirements and expertise within the studied industrial context, ensuring that practical, professional, and academic perspectives were adequately represented. While approximately 50% of participants held a tertiary degree, it should be noted that the study did not aim to analyze the relationship between education level and the occurrence of workplace incidents. The primary objective was to identify and prioritize individual factors influencing unsafe behaviors and develop a conceptual framework.

We acknowledge that this sample may not fully represent the educational distribution of all individuals who experience incidents in the broader industrial population. Therefore, caution should be exercised when generalizing the findings to other populations or industries, and this limitation has been noted in the manuscript.

Overall, the selected participants provide a comprehensive view of workplace safety behaviors by integrating practical experience, professional expertise, and academic knowledge, which supports the development of evidence-based safety interventions.

Comment21: No female workers took part.  Half the HSE people were female.  What is the significance of this?

Response: Thank you for this important observation. In the context of the Iranian steel industry, women are not employed in production or operational worker roles, and therefore the absence of female participants in the worker group accurately reflects the actual workforce composition.

However, women were actively involved in the HSE specialist group, with half of this group being female. Their participation provided diverse perspectives and insights regarding safety behaviors and risk perception, partially addressing the gender representation limitation in the worker group.

It should be noted that while gender-specific analysis was not an objective of the current study, the findings remain applicable to the workforce composition within this industrial context. We have acknowledged this aspect as a contextual limitation in the manuscript, ensuring that readers interpret the results with awareness of the actual gender distribution in the industry.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study that systematically sought to identify and prioritize key factors that influence unsafe industrial behaviour. I have critically examined the manuscript and my comments have been appended below.

1. The abstract is very well-written and straight on point.
2. The background information provided in the introduction is good. However, there is a need to enhance the problem statement. The problem statement must be contextualized to the region or country where the study is being conducted. Highlight why there is a need to identify and rank these human factors. Which industry is under consideration here? All industries or specific ones? Are there other factors apart from the human factors that can drive unsafe industrial behaviours? Why is the emphasis on the human factors an not those other factors?
3. I would prefer a section be created for the literature review. The theoretical underpinning is required to properly ground this study. The literature review section must review literature related to the themes under investigation, with emphases on the human factors that drive the unsafe industrial behaviours.
4. The methodology must begin very well by first introducing readers to the research approach adopted with justification. The section beings with introducing readers to how data was analysed. This is not how to begin the methodology section of a scientific paper.
5. Figure 1 must be revised and be well-described in the context of the paper.
6. Under Section 2.1, I believe the participants refer to the sample? If that is the case there is a need to properly define the population, and scientifically justify the sample size of 40. Which part of the world are these respondents based?
7. What motivated the researchers to divide the participants into the three groups?
8. Which sampling technique was used to locate the participants?
9. There is a need for re-arrangement of certain key sections of the methodology. I don’t think it is right to mention the sample size in Section 2.1. and then now move to Section 2.2 to tell readers how the sample size was obtained.
10. I wonder the relationship the Grounded Theory Method has with the sample size determination and data collection description. This was not well established.
11. There is a need to clearly distinguish the transition stage into the quantitative phase.
12. The quantitative phase of the paper is poorly written. It is important for that phase to go through similar description like the qualitative phase. For instance, the population must be defined, the sample size must be scientifically determined, the sampling approach must be stated and justified, etc.
13. Some good qualitative results have been presented but it was not clear how the qualitative results fed into the quantitative phase?
14. The authors seemed to have hurried through the presentation of the quantitative results. There is a need for a step-by-step presentation of the key results.
15. It is important that the results be it the qualitative or quantitative are each presented under each specific objective. This was not done.
16. The results for each specific objective must be discussed separately.
17. The conclusion does not very well tie together the various components of the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This can be improved.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study that systematically sought to identify and prioritize key factors that influence unsafe industrial behaviour. I have critically examined the manuscript and my comments have been appended below.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive and encouraging assessment of our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort dedicated to critically examining the study and providing valuable comments. All suggestions have been carefully considered and addressed in the revised version of the manuscript. The responses to the reviewer’s comments have been clearly highlighted in red to facilitate easy identification and review. However, due to some overlap in addressing comments from different reviewers, certain revisions may appear in other colors where they correspond to responses provided for other reviewers.

Comment1: The abstract is very well-written and straight on point.

Response:  We sincerely appreciate your positive feedback regarding the abstract. Thank you for acknowledging the clarity and precision of this section. Your comment is encouraging and reinforces the alignment of the abstract with the core objectives and contributions of the study.

Comment2: The background information provided in the introduction is good. However, there is a need to enhance the problem statement. The problem statement must be contextualized to the region or country where the study is being conducted. Highlight why there is a need to identify and rank these human factors. Which industry is under consideration here? All industries or specific ones? Are there other factors apart from the human factors that can drive unsafe industrial behaviours? Why is the emphasis on the human factors an not those other factors?

Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. The problem statement has now been strengthened and fully contextualized to the Iranian setting and the steel industry. The justification for focusing on human factors, as well as clarification of the industry under study, has been added. These revisions can be found on pages 2 and 3, lines 79–96 of the revised manuscript.

Comment3: I would prefer a section be created for the literature review. The theoretical underpinning is required to properly ground this study. The literature review section must review literature related to the themes under investigation, with emphases on the human factors that drive the unsafe industrial behaviours.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion regarding the creation of a separate literature review section. Due to the strict word limit imposed by the journal, it was not feasible to further expand the Introduction or create an independent section at this stage. Nevertheless, the key theoretical foundations and the most relevant literature pertaining to human factors and unsafe industrial behaviours have been carefully integrated within the Introduction, ensuring that the essential theoretical context is retained.

Should the reviewers consider it necessary to include a separate literature review section, we would be pleased to incorporate it in the final version or during the subsequent revision of the manuscript.

Comment4: The methodology must begin very well by first introducing readers to the research approach adopted with justification. The section beings with introducing readers to how data was analysed. This is not how to begin the methodology section of a scientific paper.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful comment regarding the structure of the Methodology section. In response, the revised manuscript now begins by clearly introducing the overall research approach, highlighting that the study adopts a hybrid qualitative methodology combining Grounded Theory and the Fuzzy Delphi Method. The justification for this approach has been explicitly provided, emphasizing its suitability for capturing rich, context-specific insights while enabling structured prioritization of critical factors influencing individual unsafe behaviors. These revisions can be found on page 3 of the revised manuscript. The relevant modifications can be found on page 3, lines 111–137 of the revised manuscript.

Comment5: Figure 1 must be revised and be well-described in the context of the paper.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this comment. The revisions made in the Methodology section, as described in response to Comment 4, provide a clear and structured explanation of the research stages, including the two-stage design involving Grounded Theory and the Fuzzy Delphi Method. As a result, Figure 1 now reflects the study design more accurately and is well-described in the context of the paper. We believe that these changes effectively address the reviewer’s concern regarding the clarity and contextual description of the figure.

Comment6: Under Section 2.1, I believe the participants refer to the sample? If that is the case there is a need to properly define the population, and scientifically justify the sample size of 40. Which part of the world are these respondents based?

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point. In the revised manuscript, the participants are now clearly defined as a purposefully selected sample drawn from the target population, which comprises all permanent employees working in the steel production units in Isfahan, Iran.

The sample size of 40 participants for the first stage was determined based on data saturation principles commonly applied in qualitative research, ensuring sufficient depth and diversity of perspectives for meaningful theory development. Participants were divided into three groups: industrial workers (n = 20), HSE experts (n = 12), and university professors (n = 8). All participants provided informed consent, were assured of confidentiality and anonymity, and could withdraw at any time without penalty.

Inclusion criteria ensured that participants had direct experience with occupational incidents, with workers required to have at least five years of industry experience and at least one registered occupational accident, HSE experts having relevant safety and accident investigation experience, and university professors possessing safety specialization and research experience. Occupational accidents were defined as events resulting in three or more workdays lost due to injury, and participants were identified based on official company accident records.

These revisions aim to provide a clear and transparent description of the population, sample, and justification of sample size, addressing the reviewer’s concerns. For the detailed response in the revised manuscript, please refer to Sections 2.1.1 (Participants, Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria) and 2.1.2 (Sampling and Data Collection).

Comment7: What motivated the researchers to divide the participants into the three groups?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important question. The participants in the first stage were divided into three groups—industrial workers, HSE experts, and university professors—to ensure a comprehensive and multidimensional understanding of the factors influencing unsafe behaviors. Industrial workers were included to provide direct practical experience of occupational incidents. HSE experts contributed professional insights based on their experience in hazard assessment, accident investigation, and safety management. University professors provided theoretical and research-based perspectives, ensuring the integration of scientific knowledge. This division allowed the study to capture practical, professional, and academic viewpoints, thereby enhancing the richness and validity of the findings.

Comment8: Which sampling technique was used to locate the participants?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important question. Participants in this study were selected using purposeful (purposive) sampling, which is commonly applied in qualitative research to ensure that participants have direct and relevant experience regarding the phenomenon under investigation. This approach allowed the inclusion of industrial workers with firsthand experience of occupational incidents, HSE experts with professional expertise in safety management, and university professors with academic and research-based insights. Purposeful sampling ensured rich, relevant, and diverse data, which is essential for meaningful qualitative analysis and theory development.

Comment9: There is a need for re-arrangement of certain key sections of the methodology. I don’t think it is right to mention the sample size in Section 2.1. and then now move to Section 2.2 to tell readers how the sample size was obtained.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this comment. The Methodology section of the manuscript has been completely revised, and all requested points, including the logical sequence of sections, sampling technique, sample size justification, and participant details, have been addressed to improve clarity and coherence.

Comment10: I wonder the relationship the Grounded Theory Method has with the sample size determination and data collection description. This was not well established.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the relationship between the Grounded Theory Method (GTM) and both sample size determination and data collection. Specifically, the sample size was guided by data saturation principles, which is a standard practice in GTM to ensure that sufficient depth and diversity of perspectives are captured. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, transcribed verbatim, and systematically coded, enabling the development of theory fully grounded in participants’ experiences. These revisions clarify how the methodological approach directly informed the sampling and data collection process.

Comment11: There is a need to clearly distinguish the transition stage into the quantitative phase.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this comment. In the revised manuscript, the transition from the qualitative to the quantitative phase has been clearly clarified. Specifically, a sentence has been added at the beginning of the Fuzzy Delphi section to indicate that the key factors identified and categorized in the qualitative Grounded Theory stage were subsequently used to develop the items for the quantitative assessment. This addition explicitly demonstrates the rationale for the transition and ensures a coherent and logically connected two-phase methodology. The relevant modifications can be found on page 6, lines 230–233 of the revised manuscript.

Comment12: The quantitative phase of the paper is poorly written. It is important for that phase to go through similar description like the qualitative phase. For instance, the population must be defined, the sample size must be scientifically determined, the sampling approach must be stated and justified, etc.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In the revised manuscript, the quantitative phase has been thoroughly revised to match the clarity and rigor of the qualitative phase. The population, sample size, and sampling approach are now clearly defined, with 20 experts (HSE specialists and university professors) selected based on purposeful expert sampling. The methodology now explicitly describes how the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) was applied to evaluate the importance of factors identified in the qualitative stage, emphasizing the use of fuzzy sets to capture nuanced human judgments. Data analysis followed the procedure developed by Hsu and Yang, ensuring systematic aggregation of expert opinions and consensus-based prioritization. These revisions ensure that the quantitative phase is transparent, methodologically rigorous, and clearly connected to the qualitative findings. The relevant modifications can be found on page 6, lines 233–240 of the revised manuscript.

Comment13: Some good qualitative results have been presented but it was not clear how the qualitative results fed into the quantitative phase?

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this comment. In the revised manuscript, it has been clearly indicated at the beginning of the Fuzzy Delphi section that the key factors identified and categorized in the qualitative Grounded Theory stage were used to develop the items for the quantitative assessment. This addition explicitly demonstrates how the qualitative findings directly informed the quantitative phase, ensuring a coherent and systematic transition from qualitative identification to quantitative prioritization while maintaining methodological rigor and logical consistency between the two phases. The relevant modifications can be found on page 6, lines 233–240 of the revised manuscript.

Comment14: The authors seemed to have hurried through the presentation of the quantitative results. There is a need for a step-by-step presentation of the key results.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this comment. The Fuzzy Delphi procedure has been explained in detail, step by step, in the Methodology section, including how factors were developed from the qualitative stage, how expert evaluations were collected, and how fuzzy numbers were computed. Therefore, in the Results section, we reported only the final outcomes, avoiding repetition of methodological details. However, if the reviewers suggest additional clarifications or a more detailed presentation of the quantitative results, we would be happy to incorporate them in the revised manuscript. These revisions can be found on pages 6 and 7, lines 241–271 of the revised manuscript.

Comment15: It is important that the results be it the qualitative or quantitative are each presented under each specific objective. This was not done.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. In the current manuscript, the results—both qualitative and quantitative—have been presented in a manner that reflects the overall study objectives, although they are not explicitly separated under each specific objective. This approach was chosen to maintain clarity, coherence, and logical flow, avoiding repetition and redundancy. However, we fully appreciate the reviewer’s point, and if the editorial team or reviewers consider it necessary, we are prepared to restructure the results in the revised manuscript to explicitly align them with each specific objective.

Comment16: The results for each specific objective must be discussed separately.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, the study objectives have been explicitly addressed in the Results and Discussion sections. Specifically:

The first objective—identifying key individual factors influencing unsafe behaviors in industrial workers—is discussed clearly and separately.

The second objective—prioritizing these factors using the Fuzzy Delphi Method—is also presented distinctly with two clarifying sentences added to emphasize the stepwise analysis.

The third objective, which involves providing managerial recommendations to better manage these factors, is integrated within the discussion of the first two objectives, reflecting practical implications derived from both identification and prioritization of factors.

This structure ensures that all study objectives are systematically addressed, maintaining clarity, coherence, and alignment with the study’s goals, while avoiding unnecessary repetition.

These revisions can be found on page 14 and 7, lines 438–439 and page 15, lines 495-498 of the revised manuscript.

Comment17: The conclusion does not very well tie together the various components of the paper.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion, the Conclusion section has been thoroughly revised. All necessary changes have been applied to ensure that it clearly integrates the study objectives, qualitative and quantitative findings, and practical implications, providing a coherent and comprehensive synthesis of the research. These revisions can be found on page 16, lines 525-558 of the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study demonstrates a clear contribution to human factor prioritization in industrial safety. However, before publication it requires expansion of methodological section, and analytical discussion to further strengthen the study.

1. The FDM parameters discussed need to be fully reported. The process for theme reduction from 20 to 14 needs to be explained. Include the raw consensus table.
2. Explain how qualitative codes were operationalized into quantitative items.
3. The discussion section re-iterates earlier citations without contrasting competing findings or limitations in prior work. Addressing this will increase the novelty of the study.
4. If possible, add a Future Work paragraph in the conclusion section highlighting potential directions for expanding the study. Could the model (the identified human factors) be used to test across different industrial sectors? This could demonstrate how the proposed framework could be expanded and applied in broader context.

The manuscript demonstrates notable strengths through its integration of qualitative and quantitative methods, combining grounded theory with FDM. Moreover, the conceptual model effectively illustrates causal relationships among risk perception, experience, skill etc, offering valuable insights for safety managers. Addressing the above comments would further improve the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment1: The study demonstrates a clear contribution to human factor prioritization in industrial safety. However, before publication it requires expansion of methodological section, and analytical discussion to further strengthen the study.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, both the Methodology and Discussion sections have been thoroughly revised and expanded to provide greater clarity, detail, and analytical depth. We hope that these revisions fully address the reviewer’s concerns and meet the high standards of the journal. The responses to the reviewer’s comments have been clearly marked in green within the revised manuscript. However, due to some overlap in addressing comments from different reviewers, certain revisions may appear in other colors where they correspond to responses provided for other reviewers.

Comment2: The FDM parameters discussed need to be fully reported. The process for theme reduction from 20 to 14 needs to be explained. Include the raw consensus table.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the constructive comment. All FDM-related parameters — including the number and expertise of the panelists, the Likert-to-fuzzy number conversion, the aggregation and defuzzification formulas, and the pre-specified acceptance/rejection criteria — are fully described in Section 2.2 (Methods). To avoid repetition and to preserve the readability of the manuscript, the Results section reports only the outcomes of those procedures (i.e., the final accepted themes).

Regarding the reduction from 20 to 14 themes, this was performed according to the a priori criteria stated in Section 2.2: themes that failed to meet the acceptance thresholds or that demonstrated substantive semantic overlap with other themes were either rejected or merged based on expert consensus. Nevertheless, if the reviewer believes more transparency is required, we will gladly.

Comment3: Explain how qualitative codes were operationalized into quantitative items.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comment. The process through which qualitative codes were transformed into quantitative items has already been fully described in the Methods section. Specifically, after conducting the qualitative content analysis, the initial codes were grouped into categories and themes, and each theme was operationalized into a measurable quantitative item. This was achieved by converting the conceptual meaning of each code into a concise and observable statement that could be evaluated by experts during the FDM procedure. Overlapping codes were merged, and representative statements were formulated to ensure conceptual clarity and measurability. These revisions can be found on pages 6 and 7, lines 241–271 of the revised manuscript.

Comment4: The discussion section re-iterates earlier citations without contrasting competing findings or limitations in prior work. Addressing this will increase the novelty of the study.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In response, the Discussion section has been revised to move beyond reiterating citations and now includes: (1) explicit comparison of our findings with both supportive and contradictory evidence in prior studies, (2) incorporation of limitations and methodological gaps in the existing literature, and (3) a clearer articulation of how these contrasts strengthen the novelty and contribution of our study. We hope the revised section adequately addresses the reviewer’s concern. These revisions can be found on pages 15, lines 480–494 and pages 15 and 16, lines 518-523 of the revised manuscript.

Comment5: If possible, add a Future Work paragraph in the conclusion section highlighting potential directions for expanding the study. Could the model (the identified human factors) be used to test across different industrial sectors? This could demonstrate how the proposed framework could be expanded and applied in broader context.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. A paragraph on Future Work has been added in the Conclusion section, highlighting potential directions for expanding the study. Specifically, we note that the identified human factors model could be tested across different industrial sectors to examine its generalizability and applicability, and to explore how the proposed framework can be adapted and implemented in broader organizational contexts. These revisions can be found on pages 16 and 17, lines 561-571 of the revised manuscript.

Comment6: The manuscript demonstrates notable strengths through its integration of qualitative and quantitative methods, combining grounded theory with FDM. Moreover, the conceptual model effectively illustrates causal relationships among risk perception, experience, skill etc, offering valuable insights for safety managers. Addressing the above comments would further improve the manuscript.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation and constructive feedback. We are pleased that the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods and the conceptual model were recognized as strengths of the manuscript. In the revised version, we have carefully addressed all previous comments, including enhancing the Discussion, clarifying methodological details, and adding a Future Work paragraph. These revisions have further strengthened the manuscript and improved its clarity, rigor, and practical relevance for safety management.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the updated paper, and see that you have improved the paper considerably.  Well done, on writing an interesting and useful paper.  I do not know anything about health and safety in Iran, so this is a good introduction!  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for taking your time to address the issues I raised in my previous comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed the major concerns raised in the previous review round. The revised manuscript demonstrates significantly improved methodological transparency, including clear justification of the Grounded Theory coding process, evidence of data saturation, robust inter-rater reliability, and a clearer linkage between qualitative findings and the Fuzzy Delphi analysis. The scope and limitations are now appropriately framed, and the conclusions are aligned with the data presented.

Minor revisions:

1. Briefly iterate in the Discussion that the Fuzzy Delphi rankings are intended as prioritization tools rather than predictive or causal models, to avoid potential over-interpretation.
2. Add 2–3 concise, actionable examples of how safety managers could operationalize the top-ranked factors (e.g., risk perception, experience, skills) in training or intervention programs.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf