Dear Dr. Jahangiri,

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 carefully read the comments provided by the following three reviewers as shown below, which are against the quality of your paper. Please revise your paper and prepare responses according to those comments.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 12 2025 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.

• 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,

Ta-Chung Chu

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.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study is part of the master's thesis of Ms. Mina Bargar, a master's student at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. It was financially supported by the Research and Technology Deputy of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences under grant number [Grant Number: 23812]. The authors are extremely grateful to Research and Technology Deputy of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for funding this research, without your support, this work would not have been possible.”

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This study is part of the master's thesis of Ms. Mina Bargar, a master's student at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. It was financially supported by the Research and Technology Deputy of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences under grant number [Grant Number: 23812]. The authors are extremely grateful to Research and Technology Deputy of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for funding this research, without your support, this work would not have been possible.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This study is part of the master's thesis of Ms. Mina Bargar, a master's student at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. It was financially supported by the Research and Technology Deputy of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences under grant number [Grant Number: 23812]. The authors are extremely grateful to Research and Technology Deputy of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for funding this research, without your support, this work would not have been possible.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

6. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: • The use of abbreviations in the title disrupts the flow, and neglecting writing conventions may create a negative first impression for the reader.

• Abbreviation usage in the abstract should follow proper conventions. When a term is mentioned for the first time, its full form should be written out, followed by its abbreviation in parentheses. Subsequently, the abbreviation alone should be used consistently throughout the text.

• Providing a list of abbreviations and their meanings immediately after the abstract can help readers follow the text more easily. This is particularly beneficial in studies where abbreviations are frequently used.

• Some references cited in the text are missing from the bibliography. For instance, 'Xiaomi Mi et al. (2019)' under section 1.1 is not included in the reference list. This inconsistency can undermine the academic reliability of the study. All references cited in the text should be cross-checked with the bibliography, and any missing sources should be added.

• The study's literature review should be strengthened. Incorporating more diverse and up-to-date references related to the topic will enhance the academic foundation of the work and better highlight its contribution to the field.

• The flowchart explaining the methodology can be included within the main text to enhance the narrative's coherence. Additionally, the lengthy calculations in sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 could be moved to the appendices to improve readability and prevent the main sections from becoming overly detailed.

• A sensitivity analysis based on the weights of SHW (Safety, Health, and Wellbeing) indicators should be included in the study. This will evaluate the impact of different weighting scenarios on the results, enhancing the robustness of the model and the reliability of the decision-making process.

• The text formatting, including font and font size, should be standardized throughout the document. Ensuring consistency across all sections and tables will improve the professional appearance of the study. Additionally, Table 15 should be revised.

Reviewer #2: Overall, the study presents a potentially valuable contribution to the field. However, the manuscript requires significant revisions to enhance clarity, coherence, and the overall presentation of the research. Addressing these comments will strengthen the study and improve its readability and impact.

1. Title

The title is overly complex and lacks clarity in highlighting the main focus of the study. It is recommended to simplify the title to clearly emphasize the core objective.

2. Introduction

The literature review on ISSA Proactive Leading Indicators (PLIs) in the Introduction section focuses primarily on the importance of these indicators but lacks a detailed discussion of the methods used by other scholars to analyze them. Specifically, the review should address:

(1)The methods employed by previous studies to derive these indicators.

(2)Limitations or gaps in these methods, such as areas that need improvement or issues that have been overlooked.

(3)This will provide a more comprehensive background and justify the need for the current study.

3. Innovation

The novelty of the study is not clearly articulated. The authors should explicitly state the innovative aspects of their work by comparing it with existing literature. This can be achieved by:

(1)Clearly identifying the gaps in previous studies.

(2)Highlighting how the current study addresses these gaps through its unique approach or methodology.

4. Methodology

While the study introduces the methods used, it lacks a detailed discussion on how these methods have been applied in previous studies related to ISSA PLIs. The authors should:

(1)Provide a review of relevant literature where these methods (e.g., HFBWM, IVHF-DEMATEL, HF-AD) have been used.

(2)Discuss how these methods address or improve upon the limitations of previous approaches in analyzing ISSA PLIs.

5. Calculation Process

The inclusion of detailed formulas and calculations in the main text makes the article overly complex. It is recommended to:

(1)Number the formulas for easy reference.

(2)Move the detailed calculations with specific values to the appendix.

(3)Keep the main text concise by providing only the essential expressions and focusing on the interpretation of results.

6. Comparison of IAM-VZPLI and EMA-VZPLI

Section 3.5 provides a comparison between IAM-VZPLI and EMA-VZPLI but does not offer a clear analysis of which method is superior. The authors should:

(1)Conduct a thorough analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each method.

(2)Provide specific criteria or metrics to evaluate which method is more effective in assessing the Vision Zero Proactive Leading Indicators.

7. Discussion

The Discussion section should be more structured and go beyond merely presenting the results of the factor analysis. The authors should:

(1)Break down the discussion into clear sub-sections.

(2)Focus on how the results can be applied in practice.

(3)Provide actionable management recommendations based on the findings.

8. Consistency in Abbreviations

There is inconsistency in the use of abbreviations, such as IAM-VZPLI and IAM-VZPL (e.g., the title of Section 3.5). The authors should:

Ensure consistent use of abbreviations throughout the manuscript.

Double-check for any typographical errors to maintain clarity and coherence.

Reviewer #3: The paper demonstrates a certain level of innovation, but there are still some deficiencies that need to be improved�

1. In the introduction, the author devotes a considerable amount of space to introducing the background of evaluation indicators. However, there are deficiencies in the literature review and introduction regarding the rationale for using the method proposed by the author, especially in terms of why existing methods fail to consider hesitancy and uncertainty, which requires further supplementation.

2. It is suggested that the author add preliminary knowledge in the second part, before the methodology section following the introduction. This should primarily include an introduction to existing methods, followed by a distillation of their deficiencies. Additionally, brief introductions to concepts used in the paper, such as BMW (if it refers to a specific concept or method) and hesitant fuzzy sets, should be provided to facilitate readers' comprehension.

3. The new evaluation method proposed in the paper utilizes hesitant fuzzy sets. In fact, there are currently more comprehensive fuzzy sets built upon hesitant fuzzy sets, such as probabilistic hesitant fuzzy sets and probabilistic dual hesitant fuzzy sets. The author does not provide an explanation or review of the necessity of using hesitant fuzzy sets in the introduction.

4. In the discussion section, the author does not present comparisons with other methods or robustness analysis. The discussion section does not currently demonstrate the advantages of the evaluation method proposed by the author. The writing of the discussion section resembles more of a conclusion section.

**********

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

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.

Evaluation of ISSA Proactive Leading Indicators for Safety, Health and Well-being; Application of  Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods based on Hesitant Fuzzy

PONE-D-24-40912R1

Dear Dr. Jahangiri,

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,

Ta-Chung Chu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: