Intervention Mapping as a Framework for Developing and Testing an Intervention to Promote Safety at a Rail Infrastructure Maintenance Company
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the article Intervention Mapping as a Framework for Developing and Testing an Intervention To Promote Safety at a Rail Infrastructure Maintenance Company, the authors focused on the intervention mapping protocol and its effective use to enhance the preparedness of managers in the field of rail maintenance. The initial analysis of the sources used, testifies to the high erudition of the authors in this topic.
The methods section provides a brief description of how the researchers conducted their research. In this section, I recommend paying attention to a better explanation of why the research was conducted, what was the main motivation. Whether it was the requirements of the practice or whether it was just part of the authors' research activity.
The results section forms the largest part of the text, it is clear, understandable and takes the knowledge further. From a methodological perspective, I would recommend adding a section on how the theoretical propositions themselves were tested. Alternatively, whether any competent authority has verified the research results.
The conclusion should be a managerial summary of the article, in that context I recommend to define the aim of the article in the introduction and to evaluate the aim in the conclusion.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see attached document for a point to point reply on raised issues. Thank you for your help in improving the manuscript.
Kind regards,
Wouter Steijn
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper describes in great depth a method inherent in a protocol to develop safety leadership training for a rail infrastructure maintenance company. The article lacks any type of practical argumentation or application of numerical and statistical types that considers real incidental data. An effort is required from the authors to apply the interesting and innovative method proposed to a real case by integrating the complete scientific description of the method. It is requested to make these changes before its publication in the journal.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see attached document for a point to point reply on raised issues. Thank you for your help in improving the manuscript.
Kind regards,
Wouter Steijn
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This article discusses the applicability of the intervention mapping (IM) framework in safety leadership for an infrastructure maintenance company. Overall, the article is well-written and presents some interesting information. My main concerns are as follows;
Section 2 - The adopted methods should be clearly mentioned. Currently, not many details regarding the methods can be found here. Were any focus group interviews or questionnaires conducted?
From the subsequent sections, I can understand that a literature survey, an interview, and training have been conducted. I recommend the authors mention such points in the Methods section.
The statement in lines 136-137 should be removed. The authors should present details in the manuscript itself.
The interview protocol is mentioned in Section 3.1 (line 146) and Appendix A. With whom the interview was conducted exactly? Only the management or supervisors and/or workers?
According to lines 425-429, a pilot training session has been conducted Was this train g conducted to measure the effectiveness of the IM approach? Some details should be presented to highlight how the effectiveness or applicability (of IM) was measured/ quantified.
Section 3.6 describes the evaluation criteria, however, I cannot see any details that highlight the effectiveness of the IM method. I can see some qualitative measures, however, to validate the IM approach or to measure its effectiveness, some quantitative measures should also be presented. Alternatively, a SWOT analysis could be conducted.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see attached document for a point to point reply on raised issues. Thank you for your help in improving the manuscript.
Kind regards,
Wouter Steijn
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The changes made by the authors contributed to the improvement of the whole article, the aim was defined and this was fulfilled in the article.
I recommend the article to be published as submitted.
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors improved the paper
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed the reviewers' comments and updated the paper accordingly.
