Dear Dr. Choudhury,

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 23 2026 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 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.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bismark Dwumfour-Asare, MSc, 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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data supporting the findings of this study are included within the manuscript.  ]

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.

3. 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.

4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Our reviewers have done a thorough review of the manuscript.

Authors have the privilege to submit their responses together with the necessary remedies or corrections as suggested/required. This will help the journal to make a final decision moving forward with this manuscript submission.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Partly. The study employs a recognized qualitative methodology (descriptive phenomenology with Braun & Clarke thematic analysis), and the seven themes are grounded in participant quotations. However, several technical concerns weaken the manuscript.

The authors claim a Husserlian transcendental phenomenological approach (line 162) but then apply Braun & Clarke's thematic analysis, which is epistemologically flexible and not inherently phenomenological. A true Husserlian analysis would typically use methods like Giorgi's or Colaizzi's procedures to arrive at essential structures of experience. The paper never produces phenomenological descriptions of essences; it produces a thematic codebook. The authors should either reframe the study as a generic qualitative descriptive study with thematic analysis or demonstrate how phenomenological reduction actually shaped the analytic steps beyond simply "bracketing."

The claim that "data saturation was reached" (line 187, 244) is asserted but never operationalized. The authors do not describe how saturation was assessed for instance, whether they tracked new codes per interview or used a stopping rule. Given the heterogeneity of participants (apprentice through master, self-employed through large-company, residential through industrial), 23 interviews may or may not have been sufficient, but the reader has no evidence either way.

The conclusions that a "self-reinforcing cycle" exists and that "joint effort" is needed are reasonable at a general level but are stated more strongly than the data warrant. The study documents co-occurrence of problems but does not establish causal or reinforcing relationships. The term "cycle" implies a dynamic model that the cross-sectional interview data cannot substantiate.

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

Not applicable in the traditional sense, as this is a qualitative study. However, several quasi-quantitative claims need scrutiny. The authors report "68 reported incidents" and "approximately 2.956 incidents per person" (line 386), which implies precise counting from narrative data. No intercoder reliability metrics are provided for this classification exercise. The incident categories in Table 4 appear to overlap (e.g., "sewer-related staph infection" appears under physical injuries, while "walking pneumonia from exposure" is under occupational health risk), and the boundary rules are not defined. The percentages in Table 2 do not sum correctly within categories (e.g., Employment Type sums exceed 100% without explanation, which is likely because participants can be both "owner" and "self-employed," but this is never clarified). The decimal precision reported (e.g., 4.345%, 39.105%, 47.795%) is spurious given n=23 and should be rounded.

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

The manuscript is generally understandable but contains numerous grammatical, stylistic, and formatting issues that would need correction.

Specific examples include: sentence fragments and run-ons (e.g., line 67: "Despite these deaths or injuries, there are no studies that discuss the topics at hand", this claim is both syntactically awkward and overly broad); inconsistent table numbering (the interview guide is labeled "Table 1" in the text at line 199 but "Table 2" in its header; participant characteristics are labeled "Table 2" in the text at line 252 but appear to be the actual Table 1); verb tense shifts within paragraphs (e.g., lines 226–233 shift between past and present); missing articles and prepositions throughout; and a reference that includes a Chrome extension URL path (lines 617–619), which is not a valid citation format. The phrase "Participants comprised of" (line 174) should be "Participants comprised" or "Participants consisted of." Several participant accounts in the Results section read more like case summaries than analytic interpretations grounded in thematic structure.

The writing would benefit from professional copyediting before resubmission.

4. General Comments to the Authors

This study addresses an understudied population within the construction trades, and the authors' practical expertise in plumbing and OSHA training is a genuine asset. The topic is timely and relevant. However, several substantive issues should be addressed before the manuscript is suitable for publication.

First, the methodological framing needs clarification. The tension between claiming a Husserlian phenomenological approach and executing a standard thematic analysis undermines credibility. If the goal was to understand the "essence" of plumbers' safety experiences, the analysis should have produced phenomenological descriptions rather than a thematic codebook. Either re-align the methodology label with what was actually done (qualitative description with thematic analysis is perfectly respectable) or demonstrate how phenomenological reduction shaped each analytic phase.

Second, the dual role of the interviewer (30-year plumber, OSHA instructor) is acknowledged but insufficiently managed. The reflexive journal is mentioned twice but never excerpted or discussed in the results. How did the interviewer's expertise shape follow-up probing? Were there moments where bracketing failed? Transparency here would strengthen, not weaken, the paper.

Third, the results section would benefit from more analytic depth and less descriptive cataloguing. Currently, each theme is presented as a series of participant-by-participant incident summaries. Stronger qualitative work would identify patterns across participants, explore contradictions, and build interpretive arguments. For example, the "get-it-done culture" is a rich finding but is discussed almost entirely in the Discussion rather than being developed as a cross-cutting analytic thread in the Results.

Fourth, the theoretical framing is thin. The abstract mentions "structural, cultural, and behavioral lenses," and several theories are referenced in passing (Bandura's social cognitive theory, Rogers' diffusion of innovations, Rosenstock's health belief model, Scott's institutional theory all in the reference list), but none are systematically applied in the analysis or discussion. Selecting one or two frameworks and using them to organize the interpretation would add considerable depth.

Fifth, several specific claims need supporting evidence or qualification. The statement that "there are no studies that discuss the topics at hand" (line 68) is too sweeping, the authors themselves cite several relevant studies. The claim about "3 fatalities" in Table 4 needs clarification: were these experienced directly by participants, witnessed, or reported secondhand? This distinction matters for data quality. The contributing factors table (Table 6) lists factors without frequencies, despite the header promising them.

Sixth, the interview guide (Table 1/2) shows different question sets for employees and owners, but the analysis does not systematically compare these two groups. Given that 6 participants were owners and 17 were employees, this contrast could yield important insights about the "perception gap" the authors discuss.

Seventh, member checking or respondent validation is not mentioned. While not mandatory, some form of credibility check beyond the research team (e.g., returning summaries to participants, consulting an external auditor) would strengthen trustworthiness.

Finally, minor but notable: the paper lists "Osburn, Woo Lee, and Gambatese, 2022" in line 69 but this reference does not appear in the reference list. Several other in-text citations (e.g., Avetta 2025, NIOSH 2018) need verification against the reference list for consistency.

In summary, the manuscript tackles an important gap and offers valuable practitioner-informed data, but it needs methodological tightening, deeper analysis, better alignment between claims and evidence, and language editing before it meets the standard for publication.

Reviewer #2: Abstract

The abstract addresses a worthwhile problem, but it would benefit from stronger precision and clearer internal structure. The background raises an important question. However, the specific research gap is not clearly articulated before the study objective is introduced. In addition, the methods, results, and conclusions are compressed into long sentences, and the abstract lists the seven themes without identifying which systemic issues were most recurrent or most analytically important. The final claim is also broader than the evidence presented in a sample of 23 plumbers can fully support (see p. 7, lines 35–58). To resolve these issues, the author or authors should consider adding one or two sentences to:

a. state the specific research gap that gave rise to the study before presenting the aim and objectives. The author (s) can state that limited qualitative research has examined why existing safety measures continue to fail plumbers, especially in trade-specific U.S. contexts such as Texas (see p. 7, lines 35–45). This is only a suggestion. The author (s) can revise this aspect according to their needs;

b. separate the objective, methods, and results more clearly and identify the most recurrent systemic barriers, rather than only listing all seven themes in one sequence (see p. 7, lines 41–55); and

c. temper the concluding claim so that it remains proportionate to a qualitative sample of 23 participants and does not imply wider generalisability than the design allows (see p. 7, lines 56–58).

Introduction Section

The introduction establishes the occupational relevance of plumbing, but the problem framing still requires sharpening. In particular, the statement that no studies address the topic is overly absolute, and the section moves from a general hazard description to the study aim without sufficiently distinguishing what is already known from what remains underexplored. The Texas justification is useful, but the novelty of the study as trade-specific, qualitative, and system-oriented should be stated more directly and earlier (see p. 8, lines 64–80; pp. 9–11, lines 81–138). To resolve these issues, the author or authors should consider adding one or two sentences to:

a. replace absolute statements such as the claim that no studies exist with a more accurate formulation showing that plumber-specific qualitative research remains limited compared with broader construction safety studies (see p. 8, lines 67–69);

b. differentiate more clearly between general construction hazard literature and the specific knowledge gap concerning plumbers, trade-specific exposures, and organisational safety failures (see pp. 8–10, lines 64–125); and

c. state the study’s significance and novelty more directly by explaining that it brings worker-centred qualitative evidence to a field often dominated by administrative statistics or broader construction analyses (see p. 11, lines 126–138).

The author or authors should consider reading and citing this peer-reviewed article: “Assessing plumbing standards compliance, challenges and training effectiveness in the Ghanaian construction industry: an institutional and compliance theory perspective”. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-05-2025-0103

Methods and research design

The methodology section contains useful details. However, it still needs stronger internal consistency and clearer justification. Most importantly, the consent procedure is reported inconsistently: the submission metadata states electronic written consent, whereas the methods section states verbal consent. The section also describes the study as descriptive phenomenology but analyses the data using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis, a combination that is not fully justified. In addition, the recruitment, saturation, and trustworthiness procedures, as well as the role of interviewer positionality, need fuller explanation (see pp. 11–16, especially p. 11, lines 141–148; pp. 13–16, lines 173–245; p. 14, lines 190–200). To resolve these issues, the author or authors should consider adding one or two sentences to:

a. reconcile the form of consent reported across the manuscript and submission materials, and state consistently whether consent was electronic written consent, verbal consent, or both (see p. 6, lines 23–26; p. 11, lines 145–148);

b. justify more clearly how descriptive phenomenology aligns with the use of Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis, or revise the methodological positioning if the study is more accurately qualitative descriptive or reflexive thematic in practice (see p. 12, lines 161–170; p. 15, lines 224–245); and

c. explain more explicitly how recruitment occurred, why 23 participants were sufficient, how saturation was operationalised, and what steps were taken to enhance trustworthiness, such as peer review of coding, audit trails, or member checking if used (see pp. 13–16, lines 173–245).

Results

The results section contains rich qualitative material. However, its presentation needs clearer analytical control. First, the participant-characteristics table is mislabelled, and the table numbering becomes confusing. Second, the section mixes personal injuries, witnessed coworker incidents, near misses, and occupational health risks in ways that are not always analytically distinguished. Third, some descriptive counts and recommendations are presented without a clear explanation of how they were derived from the thematic analysis or how they support the main qualitative argument. This reduces transparency and may blur the boundary between theme-based interpretation and incident enumeration (see pp. 17–27, especially p. 17, lines 249–253; pp. 24–27, lines 367–413). To resolve these issues, the author or authors should consider adding one or two sentences to:

a. correct the table numbering and captions so that the participant table and interview-guide table are accurately labelled and consistently referenced (see p. 14, lines 190–200; p. 17, lines 249–253);

b. distinguish more clearly between self-experienced injuries, witnessed coworker incidents, near misses, and occupational health risks so the reader can see exactly what the evidence base represents (see pp. 24–25, lines 367–389); and

c. explain more explicitly how the frequency counts, contributing factors, and participant recommendations were generated from the qualitative dataset and how they complement, rather than replace, the thematic analysis (see pp. 26–27, lines 391–413).

Discussion Section

The discussion is relevant and practically oriented. However, parts of it remain too confirmatory and occasionally move beyond the immediate evidence. In several places, the section relies heavily on external literature to explain the findings, while the distinct contribution of the present interview data is not always sufficiently foregrounded. The discussion of a “perception gap” between plumbers and employers is potentially important, but it should be tied more explicitly to the owner-versus-employee evidence generated in this study. Some recommendations are also broader than the data directly support (see pp. 28–30, lines 415–479). To resolve these issues, the author or authors should consider adding one or two sentences to:

a. distinguish more carefully between what is directly supported by participants’ accounts and what is being inferred from the wider literature on construction and high-risk occupations (see pp. 28–29, lines 415–467);

b. compare the findings more critically with plumber-specific and trade-specific safety literature, rather than relying mainly on broader construction safety studies for confirmation (see pp. 28–30, lines 424–475); and

c. show more explicitly how the reported owner and employee perspectives support the argument about perceptual or organisational gaps, so that this interpretation remains clearly grounded in the study data (see pp. 17–18, participant characteristics; pp. 28–30, lines 460–467).

The author or authors should consider reading and citing this peer-reviewed article: “Assessing plumbing standards compliance, challenges and training effectiveness in the Ghanaian construction industry: an institutional and compliance theory perspective”. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-05-2025-0103

Reviewer #3: 1. In the abstract, the initial part of the Objectives is methodology and not objectives.

2. On line 179, the table number stated is not correct.

3. The authors did not explain how the participants of the study were selected.

4. The authors did not explain how they obtained the participants of the study’s information/contact which was used for reaching out to them for the interview.

5. The interview guide provided (table 1), did not contain anonymity and confidentiality statement.

6. The interview guide provided (table 1), contained just few questions. I am not sure if those questions could generate all the responses presented in the Results.

7. How was information in Table 2 obtained? As the interview guide did not elicit that information.

8. Table 7 caption is not complete. Factors of what?

9. Recommendations of the study must be provided.

**********

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:  Henry Kofi Dansu

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Frederick Owusu Danso

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Occupational Safety and Health Risks Among Plumbers: A Qualitative Study of Workplace Hazards, Safety Practices, and System-Level Gaps in Texas

PONE-D-26-20219R1

Dear Dr. Choudhury,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

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,

Putri Anis Syahira Mohamad Jamil

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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??>

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Please, the author or authors have addressed all the issues raised and I have recommended acceptance. Congratulations to the author or authors

**********

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:  Henry Kofi Dansu

Reviewer #2: No

**********