PONE-D-24-31290The Internet of Things Deployed for Occupational Health and Safety Purposes: A Qualitative Study of Opportunities and Ethical IssuesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Clavien,

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.

The two reviewers both commend the paper for its timely focus on the ethical concerns of IoT in occupational safety and health, but also identify areas where the paper could be strengthened. One reviewer suggests that the paper could provide more detail about the literature review and differentiate participant responses based on the scenarios. The other reviewer emphasizes the need for more information on stakeholder selection, deeper ethical analysis, and concrete policy recommendations. The paper is to be improved by addressing these specific areas.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 15 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,

Denis Alves Coelho, PhD

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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified 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.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 SW and CC obtrainded funding for this research from the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant no. 187429) within the Swiss National Research Programme (NRP77) on “Digital Transformation” (https://www.snf.ch/en/hRMuYd5Qqjpl1goQ/page/researchinFocus/nrp/nrp77). The SNSF is a nonprofit national funding agency that was not involved in any step of this study. The authors have no financial or competitive interests to declare.  

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information .

6. 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 :

Reviewer 1 finds the paper to be a valuable contribution but suggests improvements in stakeholder selection, ethical analysis, and policy recommendations. Reviewer 2 recommends strengthening the paper by providing more context, addressing methodological questions, and clarifying specific points.

[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: No

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: This paper examines the ethical concerns related to the deployment of Internet of Things (IoT) technologies in occupational safety and health (OSH) settings. The authors rightly point out the increasing use of IoT in various sectors, including workplaces, but identify a significant gap in the literature regarding the ethical implications. Through a qualitative approach involving focus groups and semi-structured interviews with 24 stakeholders, the study explores their attitudes toward different IoT devices and the ethical challenges they raise.

The methodology employed, including the use of open coding for transcript analysis, is appropriate for this type of exploratory research. The stakeholders’ perspectives revealed nuanced views on different types of IoT devices. They supported some, like posture-tracker chairs and step-tracker watches, but expressed concern over others, such as sound-tracking devices. The ethical concerns were grouped into five categories: goal relevance, adverse side effects, employee roles, data processes, and vagueness, which aligns with concerns raised in academic discussions on similar technologies.

However, a few areas of the paper could be strengthened:

Clarity on Stakeholder Selection: The paper would benefit from more details on how stakeholders were selected for the study. Were they from diverse industries, or were they primarily from sectors heavily reliant on IoT technologies? A more thorough explanation of their background could provide better context for the results.

Depth of Ethical Analysis: While the categorization of ethical concerns is helpful, the analysis could delve deeper into each category. For instance, the "role of employees" is briefly mentioned, but further discussion on how IoT might impact worker autonomy, consent, and surveillance could enhance the ethical argument.

Regulatory Recommendations: The conclusion mentions the need for guidelines and regulatory instruments, but the paper stops short of offering concrete recommendations. Including more specific policy suggestions or frameworks for future regulation would significantly improve the paper's practical relevance.

Overall, the paper is an important contribution to the growing discourse on the ethical challenges of IoT in workplace settings. It offers valuable stakeholder insights but could improve by providing deeper ethical analysis and clearer policy recommendations.

Reviewer #2: Overall, I find the paper to be well structured and written, clearly motivated and reporting relevant empirical findings. The obtained data support the drawn conclusions, and the reported analyses are appropriate for the type of data collected.

In terms of data availability, the authors have done a good job of providing an easily accessible summary of the qualitative data in the supporting materials. However, the authors have not provided the (anonymized) transcripts of the focus group and interviews. The authors should indicate why this is not possible or add the transcripts to the data repository.

For suggestions for further improvement, see my comments below.

L90 My main concern with the manuscript is the ability of the reader to follow parts of the presented argument without having more insight into the separate literature review. I understand that the combination of the two studies may be beyond the scope of a single paper. However, I would suggest adding more detail about the literature review to make this paper (especially the discussion section) read better on its own. This should include information on the number of reviewed articles as well as the types of articles - empirical vs. conceptual.

L137 You list a number of aspects that differed between the three examined scenarios. Given this description, I would have expected an analysis that differentiated participants' responses based on these factors. I understand that the aim of this article was the overall collection of ethical issues rather than differentiating between the scenarios. I would suggest mentioning this in the limitations section.

L167 Was there a systematic process for identifying the different stakeholder groups?

L173 What was the rationale for conducting a focus group rather than additional individual interviews? You should touch on the methodological differences between the two approaches and the potential for different results (or lack thereof) in the discussion or limitation section.

L208 Typo in “spitted”

L243 The statement on the representation of women in the field of the Internet of Things technology requires a reference

L241 Why 18 or 19? How was this judged?

L245 It is a bit confusing why the duration of the focus group discussion is specified per scenario but the duration of the interviews (seemingly) for all scenarios combined.

L332-L342 How did the interviewer respond to the participants' questions? The level of detail in which the scenarios were prepared should be discussed in terms of its relevance to the obtained responses.

L382 “They overlooked the risk of deskilling workers when their tasks are progressively replaced by the technology” – None of the three examined scenarios include a technology that would replace relevant human work tasks. This highlights that there are likely to be differences in the types of technologies considered in this study and included in the literature review. This aspect should be addressed by providing relevant information on the literature base of the review and/or by appropriate discussion.

**********

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.

The internet of things deployed for occupational health and safety purposes: A qualitative study of opportunities and ethical issues

PONE-D-24-31290R1

Dear Dr. Clavien,

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,

Denis Alves Coelho, PhD

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: 

What is the scientific significance of this work?

Reviewer #2: I congratulate the authors on their good work and well-crafted manuscript. I have no further comments.

**********

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

**********