Testing of a Safety Leadership Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

My main concern regarding your paper is related to the lack of the explanation of the safety leadership model you mention in the title. 

Indeed you informed the reader that all the developments have been published elsewhere. By the way, I observe that your reference (Shen and Hassall, 2025) is not included within the reference section. However, this part dedicated on the way you dealt with the literature in this domain in order to define a model is in my view the most interesting aspect of your work. Without this part, the paper remains a methodological description of your Delphi. I can recognize that your approach is commendable but, as a result, the paper appears little focused on safety issues. 

As a more minor comment, I also recommend not to start a paper, actually after 5 lines of text, with a set of graphs without further contextualization.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Testing of a Safety Leadership Model

The paper addresses an important and timely topic in the field of safety management in the construction industry: the role of leadership in reducing serious and fatal injuries. The authors have developed and tested a theoretical safety leadership model through a systematic literature review and a three-round Delphi study with industry experts. The manuscript demonstrates methodological rigor in its use of the Delphi method and contributes a refined leadership model for future empirical testing.

However, the paper requires substantial revision before publishing. The main issues relate to:

• Clarity and conciseness of text – the text is overly verbose, sometimes repetitive, and contains many grammatical issues that obscure the key contributions.
• Presentation of results – large tables are difficult to interpret, and findings are not sufficiently summarized or critically discussed.
• Scientific Soundness – while the Delphi study is well explained, the contribution to theory and practice is not sharply articulated.
• Scope and limitations – the paper acknowledges its limitations (e.g., focus on Australian experts, lack of frontline worker data) but needs to emphasize how these affect generalizability.

Comments

• The abstract is overly descriptive and lacks emphasis on the novelty of the contribution. It should be rewritten to highlight:
• The problem addressed (fatal and serious injuries in construction remain high).
• The gap (leadership styles have not been linked to serious/fatal injuries).
• The method (Delphi with experts).
• The outcome (a refined leadership model with five styles and 17 elements).
• The implication (tool for future empirical testing with frontline workers).
• The introduction reviews fatality statistics and prior work on safety culture but does not clearly articulate how this study advances the field. Strengthen the research question and link it more explicitly to industry needs.
• The Delphi method is described in great detail, sometimes at the expense of clarity. For example, long passages summarize prior literature on Delphi without directly tying it back to the authors’ study design. The section could be shortened and refocused on what was done and why.
• Provide more justification for the sample size (n=12 experts). While supported by prior Delphi studies, a stronger rationale for why this particular panel was appropriate for model validation is needed.
• Clarify how consensus criteria were operationalized (median ≥ 3 and IQR ≤ 2). This should be introduced earlier in the methods, not midway through the results.
• The results are presented in extremely long tables (90+ statements across three rounds). These are important for transparency but overwhelm the reader. I suggest:
• Moving full tables to appendices/supplementary material.
• Summarizing consensus outcomes in the main text with figures, diagrams, or heatmaps that show convergence across rounds.
• Highlighting key changes between rounds (e.g., renaming of elements, dropped items) in a concise narrative.
• The demographics of the expert panel should be better integrated into the discussion of reliability and potential bias. For example, the panel was predominantly male and senior managers; this could influence the perspective on leadership.
• The discussion is largely descriptive (response rates, attrition, etc.) and underplays the conceptual and practical contribution of the model. The authors should expand on:
• How the refined model advances existing leadership theory (e.g., Bass’s full range model).
• What it offers practitioners in construction safety management.
• How it could be tested in future quantitative or qualitative studies with frontline workers.
• The limitations are acknowledged, but could be elaborated. For instance, the reliance on Australian experts may limit transferability to other cultural or regulatory contexts.
• The conclusion section is overly long and repeats results. It should instead:
• Succinctly summarize the contribution.
• Reiterate the next steps (empirical testing with frontline workers).
• Emphasize the potential industry impact.
• Numerous grammatical errors and awkward phrasing reduce readability. For example:
• “Leadership influencing on the organisational safety culture” → “Leadership influence on organizational safety culture.”
• “Experts were aware that the participation is entirely voluntary” → “Experts were informed that participation was voluntary.”
• Figures are not always clearly labeled or referenced in the text. Ensure consistency in figure numbering and captions.
• References should be carefully checked for formatting consistency and completeness.
• Use consistent terminology: e.g., “management-by-exception passive” vs. “MBEP,” “proactive leadership” vs. “management-by-exception active (renamed).”
• Abbreviations should be defined when first used.
• Some symbols are very particular: I advise adding an appendix with all the mathematical symbols used.
• Resume of essential revision needed
• Rewrite abstract and introduction to emphasize novelty and contribution.
• Condense methodology by focusing on study-specific procedures and moving generic Delphi literature to supplementary material.
• Streamline results presentation with summary figures/tables and move detailed data to appendices.
• Strengthen discussion by interpreting results in relation to theory, practice, and international context.
• Tighten the conclusion to highlight contributions and next research steps.
• Substantive language and grammar revision for clarity and professionalism.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper is generally well-written and structured. 
2. The article has some areas for improvement concerning methodology and formatting of references.   
3. Can you give justification about the novelty of the study.
4. The transparent methodology can give a separate section for better clarity. 
5. Are any specific theories used in Construction Industry for leadership styles?
6. The research questions and objectives should be revised to establish a clearer relationship between them. It is essential to ensure that all research questions are addressed by the research objectives. Additionally, the research questions should be more specific and focused, avoiding overly general research questions.
7. The conclusion section requires revision and rewriting. I recommend that the authors create a separate section for limitations and future research, listing them using bullet points. In the conclusion section, the authors should clearly present the conclusions drawn from their research findings.
8. What about flexible leadership, servant leadership? there more to be discussed.
9. Many recent literature have been missed 2023-2025 this to be highly considered.

 

Best Wishes

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

Thanks for this enhanced version of your paper.

Bets regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have put in the effort to improve the article, making it suitable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

Good day to you , I appreciate the authors for taking great efforts to enhance the quality of paper. There's substantial improvement overall.

Best wishes