Psychosocial Safety and Health Hazards and Their Impacts on Offshore Oil and Gas Workers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This original article manuscript is a well-writing work to read. There is some suggestions to authors as follows:

1) Keywords section (L25) modify to follow the Style of Safety journal.

2) "one-on-one (L14)" or "one-to-one (L59-60)" interviews.

3) Participants section (L66-73) description has differences to correct or explain. (a total of 37 participants (L68), but there were 24 employees with ongoing employment, 6 casual workers and 10 contractors in the sample. (L71-72))

Author Response

1) Keywords section (L25) modify to follow the Style of Safety journal.
Reply: Keywords have been amended to journal style (all lower case) (page 1, line 25).

2) "one-on-one (L14)" or "one-to-one (L59-60)" interviews.
Reply: Changed ‘one-to-one’ to ‘one-on-one’ to reflect the Cambridge Dictionary’s explanation of the terms, where ‘one-on-one’ reflects the activity of two people talking, with one teaching or giving information to the other’ (page 2, line 104).

3) Participants section (L66-73) description has differences to correct or explain. (a total of 37 participants (L68), but there were 24 employees with ongoing employment, 6 casual workers and 10 contractors in the sample. (L71-72))
Reply: Some workers had more than one employment type, so a new category was added to differentiate employment types. Page 2, line 76.

On page 2, line 91, ‘participants 1-33’ has been corrected to 1-37.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your manuscript to review. It addresses a pertinent topic for research. however, there are some issues to solve before considering it for publication.

 

First, the introduction and the literature review are feeble and disorganized. Please restructure and consider specifying the main study goals, relevance, and contributions. 

 

Second, please describe in more detail the qualitative analysis and the. reorganize the discussion section accordingly.

 

I wish the authors good luck.

N/A

Author Response

1) First, the introduction and the literature review are feeble and disorganized. Please restructure and consider specifying the main study goals, relevance, and contributions. 
Reply: The main study goals are included in lines 50 to 53.
Relevance and contributions are included in lines 53 to 61.
No other reviewer asked for changes to the published literature used to discuss the research. The discussion is well-structured, has clear headings and is organised into corresponding sections of findings that emerged from the analysis.

2) Second, please describe in more detail the qualitative analysis and the. reorganize the discussion section accordingly.
Reply: More information about the qualitative process has been added on page 2, lines 91-102.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Your work thematic is of extreme importance and it is delightful to read.

I have just minor comments to it, in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 3’s comments

-workers?
Reply: Page 1, line 3 - Changed ‘installations’ to ‘workers’ as suggested.
-out?
Reply: Page 1, line 28 - Added ‘out’ before the FIFO, not after it.
-safety.
Reply: Page 1, line 35 - Changed ‘security’ to ‘safety’ as suggested.
-Is it possible to re-arrange this information to make it clearer? Additionally, it would be interesting to understand the performed jobs and other participants' relevant information.
Reply: Page 2, lines 73-78 - The work status of employees has been reorganised to make it clearer. Some example roles have been added.
- of…?
Reply: Page 2, lines 83-92 - Added in the details of what literature was reviewed and these findings.
- It would be important to summarise the main topics that were discussed beforehand, maybe with an introductory paragraph.
Reply: Page 3, lines 115-118 - Added in more information about what was discussed and reference where to find the questions (Appendix).

Thank you for reviewing this manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, I find your study original and very interesting because we certainly know very little about the psychosocial risks faced by workers in this sector. Moreover, in general terms, your manuscript is perfectly in line with the norms and standards of publication. However, as a reader, I have some doubts that I would like to have clarified.

First, when describing the participants, I find a contradiction, since you say that there were 37 participants. However, shortly after, you say that there were 24 permanent employees, 6 temporary workers and 10 contractors in the sample, which adds up to 40 people. And, later, you say: All respondents were anonymous and assigned numbers from 1 to 33. What is the actual number of participants?

Second, the adoption of an open-ended question design, the use of NVivo software for thematic analysis, the comparison of findings with existing literature, and the adoption of coding and sub-coding might suggest an effort to improve validity and reliability. Despite this, I miss information on the reliability of the coding, and most especially, on whether they sampled the participants' responses, and if they did, what strategies they adopted to ensure the representativeness and reliability of the data. On the other hand, it is very appropriate that they transcribe quotes from the participants to illustrate the results, but what criteria did they use to select these?

In short, I believe that clarifying these issues would greatly improve the presentation of your work.

Author Response

1) First, when describing the participants, I find a contradiction, since you say that there were 37 participants. However, shortly after, you say that there were 24 permanent employees, 6 temporary workers and 10 contractors in the sample, which adds up to 40 people. And, later, you say: All respondents were anonymous and assigned numbers from 1 to 33. What is the actual number of participants?
Reply: Some workers had more than one employment type, so a new category was added to differentiate employment types (page 2, line 76).
On page 2, line 91, ‘participants 1-33’ has been corrected to 1-37.

2) Second, the adoption of an open-ended question design, the use of NVivo software for thematic analysis, the comparison of findings with existing literature, and the adoption of coding and sub-coding might suggest an effort to improve validity and reliability. Despite this, I miss information on the reliability of the coding, and most especially, on whether they sampled the participants' responses, and if they did, what strategies they adopted to ensure the representativeness and reliability of the data. 
Reply: More information about the qualitative process has been added on page 2, lines 91-102.

On the other hand, it is very appropriate that they transcribe quotes from the participants to illustrate the results, but what criteria did they use to select these?
Reply: The participants’ quotes included in the article were included by the researcher as references for the source of this research finding.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept this revised version.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing this revised version of the paper.

Kind regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made a nice work addressing all the comments made in the previous version of the manuscript. I wish the authors good luck.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing this revised version of the paper.

Kind regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

No further comments to add.

Reviewer 4 Report

I congratulate you on your interesting study, and thank you for your response to my comments. Congratulations!

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing this revised version of the paper and thank you for your congratulations.

Kind regards.