Cattle-related occupational accidents in Japan

Hilomi Iwai; Hideki Yamamoto

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0289210

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 10, 2022
25 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Pramod K Pandey, Editor PONE-D-22-16745Cattle - related injuries in JapanPLOS ONE Dear Dr. IWAI, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 09 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Pramod K Pandey Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "No. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Author: This study has novel information beneficial to stakeholders. However, authors are required to follow guidelines of PLOSONE and Improve data presentation (figure & table). Please improve and write abstract and conclusions concisely describing the major findings in laymen language as well as with scientific evidence. While revising, please pay special attention on English language and edits. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The manuscript present a EDA of the cattle involved occupational accidents related to and provides an insight on health and safety issues in cattle production through claim data between 2013 to 2016. However, having access to a large dataset could be used to find more complex modelling and providing a better picture in future. Reviewer #2: All comments are attached in the PDF which I included all my corrections and feedback for the authors regarding the manuscript titled cattle-related injuries and fatalities in Japan. Great work if you consider all comments from all reviewers ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Mahmoud M. Nour, Ph.D., Purdue University, USA ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewers Comments MN.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289210.r001
Revision 1
18 Jan 2023 Author Response Dear Reviewer #1 We thank the reviewer for the positive comment. Gathering the information of agricultural occupational accidents is under consideration issues. In Japan, the most of agriculture-related accidents are not included in the Survey on Industrial Accidents (by Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of the Japanese government) because 98% of Japan's agricultural management entities are family-owned (self-employed) and have no compulsory occupational accident insurance or obligation to report. We expect the positive approach by the related government ministries and agencies. Thank you. Dear Reviewer #2 Dr Mahmoud M. Nour Thank you very much for providing important comments. We are appreciate for the time and energy you expended. We revised as follows. Line17 etc. (Line19 etc. in the new file): ‘Incident’ or ‘Accident’ We revised the ward according to your advice. We used ‘Accident’, because ‘Accident’ is cases which results in fatal or non-fatal injury and ‘Incident’ is cases witch results in non-human injury: analysed JA Kyosai mutual aid payment claim form data include only the treated in hospital cases. However, event is ‘incident’ in Epidemiology as your advice. Therefore, we revised ‘Accident’ to ‘Incident’. Line56, 178, 179(Line73 to 89, 259 to 263 in the new file): zoos We revised the text to reflect according to your advice as follow. We wanted to explain that cattle are kind of large herbivores need to be kept with caution. But the sentences of the first edition were little bet difficult to make sense. Line56(Line73 to 89) Before: ‘Although cattle, a kind of large herbivore, might not look dangerous, the Ministry of the Environment of the Japanese government recommends keeping them under protected contact in zoos.’ After: ‘Even if cattle look gentle, they are a kind of large herbivore. Zoos that also deal with animals are required to keep large herbivore under protected contact as dangerous animals by the Ministry of the Environment of the Japanese government having jurisdiction over zoos.’ Line178,179(Line259 to 263 in the new file) Before: ‘ Cattle are common farm animals; under protected contact keeping is recommended in zoos by the Ministry of the Environment of the Japanese government. Not only in zoos but also in farms, cattle should be kept under protected contact. Even farmers with long and varied experience with cattle cannot predict their behaviour. Preventions have limits and harm reduction must be considered on the other hand.’ After: ‘Beef and milk cattle are common farm animals. However, they are large herbivorous need to keep with caution. Even farmers with significant experience with cattle cannot predict their behaviour. Measures of harm reduction in incident should be taken at the same time as measures of prevention.’ Line127(Line 187 in the new file): ‘Bringing’ or ‘Handling’ We would like to keep ‘Bringing’. Because ‘bringing’ of ‘Activity at the moment of incident’ means ‘let cattle move from some place to another place’. And ‘Handling’ sometimes means ‘general breeding work’. Therefor we chose ‘bringing’ according to the previous study (David I. Douphrate et.al. Livestock-Handling Injuries in Agriculture: An Analysis of Colorado Workers’ Compensation Data. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICI, 2009;52:391-407.). Other pointed wards and sentences We revised according to your advice. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289210.r002
12 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Pramod K Pandey, Editor PONE-D-22-16745R1Cattle - related injuries in JapanPLOS ONE Dear Dr. IWAI, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 26 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Pramod K Pandey Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Please see the comments from reviewer and attempt to resolve the issue. Overall, manuscript is improved, few issues are yet to be resolved. In addition, please revisit manuscript carefully to improve writing errors, and English of the manuscript. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear Authors Your response to the reviewer's comments is satisfactory. Kind regards Dr Masoud Shirali Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well written; clear, precise, organized and easy to understand. With the minor revisions, I do recommend this manuscript for publication. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr Masoud Shirali Reviewer #2: Yes: Mahmoud M. Nour, PhD ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Cattle related injuries in Japan (Nour).pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289210.r003
Revision 2
14 Mar 2023 Author Response REVIWER’S SPECIFIC COMMENTS: Reviewer #1 Dr Masoud Shirali: We thank Dr Masoud Shirali for the positive comment. Reviewer #2 Dr Mahmoud M. Nour: [Response] Thank you very much for providing important comments. We are appreciate for the time and energy you expended. We revised as follows. Line1 (Line1in the new file): After careful thought, we would like to change title from ‘Cattle-related injuries in Japan’ to ‘Cattle-related Occupational Accidents in Japan’. According to your kind advice, we made it more accountable about the study. Line23 (Line27 in the new file): We would like to keep ‘them’ to describe more clearly. This ‘them’ means ‘extracted data set’ and it is different from the original data. Line24 (Line28 in the new file): We would like to keep original sentence. Because we describe age as age group and not average age. Line124 etc. (Line148 etc. in the new file): We would like to keep original sentence. We would describe more pointed span and it is a set idiom. Other pointed words and sentences: We revised according to your advice. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289210.r004
17 May 2023 Decision Letter - Pramod K Pandey, Editor PONE-D-22-16745R2Cattle-related Occupational Accidents in Japan.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. IWAI, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 01 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Pramod K Pandey Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): We have received sufficient feedback. Minor revisions are suggested. Authors should put additional efforts on improving the manuscript writing and discussion. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Method Wouldn't it be more useful to show Japan's agricultural population and the number of JA mutual aid subscribers rather than showing the number of JA subscribers? Discussion I recommend adding consideration to the following two points; 1) In the four years from 2013 to 2016, three work-related deaths caused by cattle have been confirmed. https://www.jisha.or.jp/international/topics/pdf/2021j070101.pdf 2) In the following four years from 2017 to 2020, 207 such cases have been confirmed. https://www.ja-kyosai.or.jp/files/2018/201808-3.pdf Line 176: Isn't "dairy cattle" more common than "milk cattle"? Lines 191 and 192: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Line 193: result -> results ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr Masoud Shirali Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289210.r005
Revision 3
29 Jun 2023 Author Response REVIWER’S SPECIFIC COMMENTS: Reviewer #1: Dr Masoud Shirali [Response] Thank you very much for providing important comments. We appreciate for the time and energy you expended. Reviewer #3: [Response] Thank you very much for providing important comments. We appreciate for the time and energy you expended. We revised as follows. 1. The number of populations working for agriculture: Though, we didn’t write about it to keep our article simple, according to your advice, we added the number of populations working for agriculture (national population census of Japan in 2015). However, there are concerns that the number dose not fully reflect the actual situation. Because there so many part-time worker and family helper working in farm in busy farming season. And those people are not counted for population mainly working for agriculture. (Line 54~58) 2. The number of policyholders: Though, we didn’t write about it to keep our article simple, and JA Kyosai does not disclose the number of policyholders for individual insurance products, according to your advice, we added the released number of policyholders of comprehensive life insurance. We do not consider it important because our research dose not aim to calculate incident rate or other epidemiological indexes. (Line 89~93) 3. Additional consideration in discussion: We thank you for your deep interest in our work and your empathic advice. We carefully discussed your 2 points of suggestion. First your suggestion is about 3 fatal cases; the reference is the data of Survey on Industrial Incidents, of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of the Japanese government released by Japan Industrial Safety and Health Association. The data is from another survey; it is difficult to compare to our study directly. And our study discusses only injured case. Second your suggestion is about the report from JA Kyosai report in data of 2017 to 2020; This data represents a newer time period for the data we have been provided with and analysed. These data also need to be considered, but they do not influence the results of our study.　And as a consequence, we have decided to refrain from mentioning these subjects. 4. Thank you for your advice. We agree that ‘Milk cattle’ is more common as spoken. However, we would like to keep ‘Dairy cattle’ because it is more formal and academic. 5. Thank you for correcting our miss typing. We correct it to ‘Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries’ and ‘results’. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289210.r006
14 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Pramod K Pandey, Editor Cattle-related Occupational Accidents in Japan. PONE-D-22-16745R3 Dear Dr. IWAI, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Pramod K Pandey Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Manuscript is acceptable. Figures quality needs to be improved during next stage of publication process. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289210.r007
Formally Accepted
21 Jul 2023 Acceptance Letter - Pramod K Pandey, Editor PONE-D-22-16745R3 Cattle-related Occupational Accidents in Japan. Dear Dr. Iwai: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Pramod K Pandey Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289210.r008

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .