Investigation of the status of rest facilities at industrial sites and awareness of relevant laws and regulations of South Korea

Yeon-Hee Jeong; Woo-Je Lee; Ki-Youn Kim

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0302654

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 19, 2023
16 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Hamed Aghaei, Editor PONE-D-23-40165Investigation of The Status of Rest Facilities at Industrial Sites and Awareness of Relevant Laws and Regulations of South KoreaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kim, 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 Mar 01 2024 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, Hamed Aghaei, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: No 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: Introduction: - In the third line of the introduction, please mention the full title of the word "OECD", and if necessary, use the abbreviation in the rest of the text. - In line 18 of the Introduction, the sentence is incomplete and therefore requires rewriting. “Research 19 on the satisfaction with welfare facilities on construction sites (6) indicated that factors such 20 as dining facilities, clothes changing rooms, and rest facilities have a 60.9% impact” - The sentence in line 24 of the Introduction should be either deleted or placed in a more appropriate location, such as at the beginning of the Introduction “Rest at work plays an important role in building positive 25 relationships and recharging (9).” 2. Method It seems like the manuscript has some issues with its methodology. It would be helpful to have a more detailed and complete methodology section that can be thoroughly understood and replicated by other researchers. Survey item The details regarding the method of determining questionnaire questions, as well as the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, should be added comprehensively. Results - General and work-related characteristics "The distribution across age groups from the 20s to the 50s was relatively even, ranging from 15.4% to 38.8%. However, this sentence is a bit unclear and could be rewritten for better clarity." Reason of rest installation uninstalled This section is not mentioned in the survey method item. Please include related information by specifying the tool used, along with its validity and reliability. Discussion - Line 24, the sentences “Regarding the reasons for the lack of rest facilities, all survey respondents (including those 19 without rest facilities) cited 'lack of a suitable place for rest facilities', 'lack of awareness by 20 the employer', 'cost issues', and 'other (not feeling the necessity, lack of legal knowledge)' in 21 that order.” It seems that the current discussion is not written appropriately and mostly focuses on the musculoskeletal complications caused by the lack of rest facilities. Therefore, this section should be revised from the end of the mentioned sentence to the beginning of the sentences in line 6, which talks about the actions taken by the Korean Ministry of Employment and Labor following a legal amendment. “Following the legal amendment, the Korean Ministry of Employment and Labor has been” - In the introduction of the manuscript, the existence of laws related to rest facilities in Turkey, England, India, and Australia is mentioned. However, the discussion in the manuscript should also compare the laws related to rest in South Korea with those of the aforementioned countries." Please rewrite it. Conclusion: The conclusion section of a manuscript should ideally summarize the main findings and points of the study. It should reflect on the research questions and objectives, and provide a clear answer to them. Additionally, it should highlight the significant contributions made by the study to the existing literature. Finally, the conclusion should include recommendations for future research. Please rewrite this section completely. The conclusion section should be summarized and the most important findings and points of the study should be reflected in it. Reviewer #2: Dear PlOS ONE Journal Editor I appreciate your consideration in submitting the article to me for reviewing under the title " Investigating the implementation status of active risk management in the operating rooms of selected educational hospitals in Iran in 2023- Manuscript #: PONE-D-23-23449 “. The results of the review of the article is announced as follows: Introduction: - Please include the full title of the word "OECD" in the third line of the introduction. - The paper is linear in reading, even if English should be revised by a native speaker to improve its readability and quality. Method The procedure for choosing questionnaire questions, as well as the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, should be thoroughly described. Results Reason of rest installation uninstalled This part is not addressed in the method of survey section; please provide related information by identifying the tool utilized, as well as its validity and reliability. Discussion - Please provide a comparison of South Korea's labor laws with other related countries and international standards with an emphasis on increasing workplace productivity Conclusion: The conclusion part of a manuscript should summarize the most important results and points of the study. Furthermore, the conclusion should offer recommendations for further study. ****** 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: 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.0302654.r001
Revision 1
3 Mar 2024 Author Response � Response to reviewer's #1 comments on revision (This Text is also uploaded at 'Response to reviewer's' file) The revised texts are marked in red on the manuscript. 1. Add the full term for OECD and use an abbreviated one (OECD) hereafter. -> Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was added in the third line of the introduction. 2. The sentence in the 18th line of the introduction is incomplete, so please rewrite it. -> We revised the sentence in line 18 of the introduction completely. Please refer to the sentence. 3. Consider deleting the content stating that factors such as dining facilities, changing rooms, and rest areas account for 60.9% of the satisfaction level in construction sites in the research section of the introduction or repositioning it with the positive aspects of rest. -> We revised to make it smooth by relocating the sentence 'Research on the satisfaction ~ ' in line 19 of the introduction into the beginning of the previous study of Son, Chang-Baek. 4. Provide a detailed explanation of the methodology and add specific details regarding the validity and reliability of the survey items -> We added the following texts to the method section, detailing the recruitment of subjects and selection of survey items. The reliability analysis results that a Cronbach's α was 0.781, indicating a high reliability had already been mentioned. - The study subjects were recruited after obtaining consent to participate in the survey anonymously among working people (excluding minors). - Questionnaire items were created based on the detailed items in the standards for installing and managing rest facilities under Article 194-2 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Occupational Safety And Health Act (see table 1). 5. Make sure to clarify any unclear aspects regarding the even distribution of survey subjects across different age groups. -> [The distribution across age groups from the 20s to the 50s was relatively even, ranging from 15.4% to 38.8%. However, only one person, accounting for 0.4%, was over the age of 60.] The above content was revised as follows. - Looking at the participants in the survey by age group, those in their 20s accounted for 15.4%, those in their 30s accounted for 24.7%, those in their 40s accounted for 38.8%, and those aged 50 and older accounted for 21.1%. (see Table 2) 6. The survey method section did not mention the reasons for not installing rest facilities. -> The following content was added to the method section. - For items related to the reasons for not installing rest facilities (Q2-1, Q2-2), the options were selected based on interviews with on-site workers and managers, and the most common opinions were lack of space, cost related issues, lack of awareness by employers, and lack of knowledge about legal matters. 7. There is insufficient discussion regarding the reasons for the lack of rest facilities in the line 24, and the focus seems to be solely on musculoskeletal disorders. -> We added the texts that no prior research regarding the reasons for not installing rest facilities has been found since the mandatory legislation for rest facility installation took effect in Korea on August 18, 2022. Additionally, all content related to the necessity of rest facilities with a focus on musculoskeletal disorders has been removed. 8. In the introduction, we mentioned the laws related to rest facilities in Turkey, the United Kingdom, India, and Australia, but there is no comparison in the discussion with Korea. -> We added relevant content to the discussion section. Please refer to it. 9. The conclusion should clearly summarize the findings and key points. It is necessary to emphasize the importance of existing literature and recommend future research directions. -> The ending part of the conclusion was revised, taking into account the reviewer's comments. � Response to reviewer's #2 comments on revision 1. Add the full term for OECD and use an abbreviated one (OECD) hereafter. -> Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was added in the third line of the introduction. 2. Provide a detailed explanation of the methodology and add specific details regarding the validity and reliability of the survey items. -> We added the following texts to the method section, detailing the recruitment of subjects and selection of survey items. The reliability analysis results that a Cronbach's α was 0.781, indicating a high reliability had already been mentioned. - The study subjects were recruited after obtaining consent to participate in the survey anonymously among working people (excluding minors). - Questionnaire items were created based on the detailed items in the standards for installing and managing rest facilities under Article 194-2 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Occupational Safety And Health Act (see table 1). 3. The survey method section did not mention the reasons for not installing rest facilities. -> The following content was added to the method section. - For items related to the reasons for not installing rest facilities (Q2-1, Q2-2), the options were selected based on interviews with on-site workers and managers, and the most common opinions were lack of space, cost related issues, lack of awareness by employers, and lack of knowledge about legal matters. 4. Please explain Korea’s labor laws in comparison to other countries. -> A discussion was made by comparing the laws related to rest facilities in Turkey, the UK, India, and Australia mentioned in the introduction with the laws related to rest facilities in Korea. 5. The conclusion should clearly summarize the findings and key points. It is necessary to emphasize the importance of existing literature and recommend future research directions. -> The ending part of the conclusion was revised, taking into account the reviewer's comments. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302654.r002
10 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Hamed Aghaei, Editor Investigation of The Status of Rest Facilities at Industrial Sites and Awareness of Relevant Laws and Regulations of South Korea PONE-D-23-40165R1 Dear Dr. Kim, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Hamed Aghaei, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: 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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 #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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302654.r003

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 .