Safety Engagement in the Workplace: Text Mining Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-Interesting topic however the justification for it lacks substance. The aim of the study is quite muddled in places and needs more clarification and consistency. The introduction is highly descriptive with not much emphasis on why is this of value.

-The introduction should be revised to establish a clearer and more compelling motivation for the study. As currently prepared, it is difficult to recognize the manuscript’s primary purpose or its contribution to the extant literature. 

 

-What are the practical implications based on findings of this study? There is no need to repeat the findings in the discussion section. Please delete the repetitive parts. The discussion section should focus on the unique implications stemming from the research reported. More specific and realistic (substantial) implications are required. It is difficult to recognize the difference from the already-preceded research. Further supplementation is necessary for research limitations and future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. This manuscript aims to identity safety engagement factors in the workplace and analyze the characteristics of these factors
2. My greatest concern is with the contribution of the present research. Please explain more explicitly what is the gap that your paper wants do fill.
3. Please explain why you included the keywords you indicate in your analysis.
4. The implications for practice and theory should be more developed and clearly stated.
5. I suggest you take another pass through the manuscript to clean up grammar and usage issues.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I find the topic very interesting and the approach quite useful. However, the paper structure and the English language and style are poor. I suggest a major revision and editing from a native English speaker.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It seems to have been well revised. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors reviewed the manuscript as requested and the research is well described. The scientific soundness is good and the manuscript is ready for publication, in my opinion