A Call to Prioritize Safety in STEM and CTE: Addressing Overcrowded Classes and Other Critical Safety Issues

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Safety in school and university labs is a critical issue. There has been not much publication on this issue. Hence, it would be beneficial to have a paper on safety in labs published. This paper tackles very important issues and the idea of presenting hazardous cases is very important. However, it needs improvements to be considered for publication.

First, the objective of the paper needs to be clearer. Then, the structure of the paper needs to be rethought. The background section interrupts the sequence and its content would be more appropriate for an introduction to the paper. Then, it would be interesting to organize the paper around either type of hazardous events (if possible with cases, as done in section 1) or hazards in different labs (e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, geology, maker, etc…). Mentioning some basic measures to prevent hazards, would be very valuable.

Author Response

Reviews and Author Responses for Manuscript: Laboratories-2806034

Title: A Call to Prioritize Safety in STEM and CTE: Addressing Overcrowded Classes and Other Critical Safety Issues

Authors’ Overall Comments: We want to first thank the reviewers for their feedback to improve this manuscript. We have provided comments in red text regarding how we addressed each concern below. Edits in the manuscript have been made using track changes and correspond with the responses below. The revised manuscript is included as an attachment.

Reviewer 1:
Safety in school and university labs is a critical issue. There has been not much publication on this issue. Hence, it would be beneficial to have a paper on safety in labs published. This paper tackles very important issues and the idea of presenting hazardous cases is very important. However, it needs improvements to be considered for publication.

Authors’ Response: Thank you.

• First, the objective of the paper needs to be clearer.

Authors’ Response: We believe the abstract reflects the objective of the paper in that it describes how hands-on learning in STEM and CTE are important for learning, there can unfortunately be inherent risks with hands-on STEM and CTE activities, and there are some pertinent reoccurring safety issues in the literature that need to be addressed to further improve safety and limit potential accidents. The audience for this open access paper is policy makers, state departments of education, teacher preparation programs, school systems, school administrators, curriculum directors, educators, and other stakeholders. The structure of the paper (a research based opinion paper) matches the outline described in the abstract and is tailored to the interests of the audience it is intended for. It is not meant to be a long paper that provides details about every safety issue educators and school systems may encounter. Rather it is a short paper meant to focus on just the most important issues with research to support those points raised.

• Then, the structure of the paper needs to be rethought. The background section interrupts the sequence and its content would be more appropriate for an introduction to the paper.

Authors’ Response: We looked very closely at moving the background section to the beginning of the article but feel the background helps to lead into the major safety issues and provide some introductory information as to why those issues were selected and highlighted as the most important safety topics for schools and educators to be aware of. The purpose of the introduction is to provide a quick mention about why safety is important, and then present an example from STEM and one from CTE which will catch the attention of readers and hook them to continue reading. We believe these examples are best suited where they are, and additional examples would be redundant. We organized the paper moving from most common and critical safety concern (occupancy load) to other concerns that have been highlighted in the literature recently. We did do some restructuring of the conclusions section per the request of Reviewer 2. For this reason we believe the structure of the paper is appropriate for an opinion paper, which differs from the structure required for a review paper or research paper presenting data.

• Then, it would be interesting to organize the paper around either type of hazardous events (if possible with cases, as done in section 1) or hazards in different labs (e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, geology, maker, etc…). Mentioning some basic measures to prevent hazards, would be very valuable.

Authors’ Response: We agree that it would be interesting to organize a paper around specific hazards, or different types of labs, or courses. However, that is beyond the scope of this article and the objective of this paper. We do not believe this paper should be a long review of literature or a research article presenting and analyzing data. Rather, we believe this article is best suited as a short opinion piece that raises awareness about issues supported by recent studies. This article is intended for school systems, educators, administrators, and others to access and enhance their awareness about these critical safety issues and how to address them. We believe the article does present recommendations for how to address the gaps and shortcomings highlighted, such as training required by employers/school systems according to OSHA standards. For this reason we believe the structure is appropriate given the goals and audience of the article.

Reviewer 2:

This manuscript addresses an incredibly important issue that many undervalue. The authors are applauded for addressing teachers, administrators, and policy makers in this work. Keeping students safe is critical as are hands-on experiences as the authors document.

Authors’ Response: Thank you.

• There are a couple of places where the authors are repetitive: Background section and the statistics about eye protection should be revised so that either the information is not repeated or if it is, then different ways of saying the same thing should be employed.

Authors’ Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have removed the mention about eye protection statistics in the background section and revised it to only appear in the Other Prevalent STEM and CTE Safety Issues Section.

• The second sentence of the Conclusions is awkward. Instead of "following safer data informed practices" perhaps "provided by following data informed safety practices" would be better.

Authors’ Response: Thank you, this is a great suggestion. We made this change.

• A stronger beginning to the conclusions section would be to begin with the sentence on line 229 with the warning about safety procedures and accidents (followed by the end of the paragraph). Then you could end with the beginning pointing out that authentic hands-on experiences are critical...

Authors’ Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have moved line 229 on to the top of that paragraph and the turned the beginning portion into a second paragraph.

• The list of Helpful Resources is terrific! Thank you for including this. Some states have laboratory safety manuals/information (e.g., https://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/sciencesafety.asp). You might want to guide the readers to these pieces of information as well - even as a general call out to the states' Department of Education as a resource.

Authors’ Response: Thank you for providing the CA example. We agree there are some really good state resources out there, like Massachusetts and Minnesota both have relatively new safety guides. We are unaware of any website that has the links to every state; therefore, we added a recommendation for readers to check with their state’s department of education for additional resources.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript addresses an incredibly important issue that many undervalue. The authors are applauded for addressing teachers, administrators, and policy makers in this work. Keeping students safe is critical as are hands-on experiences as the authors document.

There are a few places that could be improved:

1. There are a couple of places where the authors are repetitive: Background section and the statistics about eye protection should be revised so that either the information is not repeated or if it is, then different ways of saying the same thing should be employed.

2. The second sentence of the Conclusions is awkward. Instead of "following safer data informed practices" perhaps "provided by following data informed safety practices" would be better.

3. A stronger beginning to the conclusions section would be to begin with the sentence on line 229 with the warning about safety procedures and accidents (followed by the end of the paragraph). Then you could end with the beginning pointing out that authentic hands-on experiences are critical...

4. The list of Helpful Resources is terrific! Thank you for including this. Some states have laboratory safety manuals/information (e.g., https://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/sciencesafety.asp). You might want to guide the readers to these pieces of information as well - even as a general call out to the states' Department of Education as a resource.

Author Response

Reviews and Author Responses for Manuscript: Laboratories-2806034

Title: A Call to Prioritize Safety in STEM and CTE: Addressing Overcrowded Classes and Other Critical Safety Issues

Authors’ Overall Comments: We want to first thank the reviewers for their feedback to improve this manuscript. We have provided comments in red text regarding how we addressed each concern below. Edits in the manuscript have been made using track changes and correspond with the responses below. The revised manuscript is included as an attachment.

Reviewer 1:
Safety in school and university labs is a critical issue. There has been not much publication on this issue. Hence, it would be beneficial to have a paper on safety in labs published. This paper tackles very important issues and the idea of presenting hazardous cases is very important. However, it needs improvements to be considered for publication.

Authors’ Response: Thank you.

• First, the objective of the paper needs to be clearer.

Authors’ Response: We believe the abstract reflects the objective of the paper in that it describes how hands-on learning in STEM and CTE are important for learning, there can unfortunately be inherent risks with hands-on STEM and CTE activities, and there are some pertinent reoccurring safety issues in the literature that need to be addressed to further improve safety and limit potential accidents. The audience for this open access paper is policy makers, state departments of education, teacher preparation programs, school systems, school administrators, curriculum directors, educators, and other stakeholders. The structure of the paper (a research based opinion paper) matches the outline described in the abstract and is tailored to the interests of the audience it is intended for. It is not meant to be a long paper that provides details about every safety issue educators and school systems may encounter. Rather it is a short paper meant to focus on just the most important issues with research to support those points raised.

• Then, the structure of the paper needs to be rethought. The background section interrupts the sequence and its content would be more appropriate for an introduction to the paper.

Authors’ Response: We looked very closely at moving the background section to the beginning of the article but feel the background helps to lead into the major safety issues and provide some introductory information as to why those issues were selected and highlighted as the most important safety topics for schools and educators to be aware of. The purpose of the introduction is to provide a quick mention about why safety is important, and then present an example from STEM and one from CTE which will catch the attention of readers and hook them to continue reading. We believe these examples are best suited where they are, and additional examples would be redundant. We organized the paper moving from most common and critical safety concern (occupancy load) to other concerns that have been highlighted in the literature recently. We did do some restructuring of the conclusions section per the request of Reviewer 2. For this reason we believe the structure of the paper is appropriate for an opinion paper, which differs from the structure required for a review paper or research paper presenting data.

• Then, it would be interesting to organize the paper around either type of hazardous events (if possible with cases, as done in section 1) or hazards in different labs (e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, geology, maker, etc…). Mentioning some basic measures to prevent hazards, would be very valuable.

Authors’ Response: We agree that it would be interesting to organize a paper around specific hazards, or different types of labs, or courses. However, that is beyond the scope of this article and the objective of this paper. We do not believe this paper should be a long review of literature or a research article presenting and analyzing data. Rather, we believe this article is best suited as a short opinion piece that raises awareness about issues supported by recent studies. This article is intended for school systems, educators, administrators, and others to access and enhance their awareness about these critical safety issues and how to address them. We believe the article does present recommendations for how to address the gaps and shortcomings highlighted, such as training required by employers/school systems according to OSHA standards. For this reason we believe the structure is appropriate given the goals and audience of the article.

Reviewer 2:

This manuscript addresses an incredibly important issue that many undervalue. The authors are applauded for addressing teachers, administrators, and policy makers in this work. Keeping students safe is critical as are hands-on experiences as the authors document.

Authors’ Response: Thank you.

• There are a couple of places where the authors are repetitive: Background section and the statistics about eye protection should be revised so that either the information is not repeated or if it is, then different ways of saying the same thing should be employed.

Authors’ Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have removed the mention about eye protection statistics in the background section and revised it to only appear in the Other Prevalent STEM and CTE Safety Issues Section.

• The second sentence of the Conclusions is awkward. Instead of "following safer data informed practices" perhaps "provided by following data informed safety practices" would be better.

Authors’ Response: Thank you, this is a great suggestion. We made this change.

• A stronger beginning to the conclusions section would be to begin with the sentence on line 229 with the warning about safety procedures and accidents (followed by the end of the paragraph). Then you could end with the beginning pointing out that authentic hands-on experiences are critical...

Authors’ Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have moved line 229 on to the top of that paragraph and the turned the beginning portion into a second paragraph.

• The list of Helpful Resources is terrific! Thank you for including this. Some states have laboratory safety manuals/information (e.g., https://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/sciencesafety.asp). You might want to guide the readers to these pieces of information as well - even as a general call out to the states' Department of Education as a resource.

Authors’ Response: Thank you for providing the CA example. We agree there are some really good state resources out there, like Massachusetts and Minnesota both have relatively new safety guides. We are unaware of any website that has the links to every state; therefore, we added a recommendation for readers to check with their state’s department of education for additional resources.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors emphasized that this is an opinion paper, focusing on two safety issues. This explanation leads me to change my mind. However, I still maintain my previous opinion on the background section. Anyway, the authors’ explanation and the changes made me think the paper may be published.