Notes

The passage under review explores the purpose and significance of analyzing the causes of maritime accidents. It emphasizes the need to understand what went wrong in order to improve future shipping safety. While investigating the human factor in accidents, the passage raises important questions about the reliability of data and the confusion surrounding terminology in this field.

The passage highlights that maritime accidents should not be solely attributed to individual mistakes but investigated for latent causes such as faulty design, poor training, and organizational deficiencies. It acknowledges that maritime shipping is a socio-technical system heavily influenced by human performance and emphasizes the importance of understanding human error's contribution to accidents.
The passage cites Anita Rothblum's influential paper on human error in the maritime domain, which reports high percentages of human error contribution. However, it questions the reliability of Rothblum's findings as they are based on non-original data. The passage further explores the ambiguity in terminology related to human error, human factors, human action, and human element, which can hinder accurate assessments of human reliability.
The passage acknowledges the significance of quantifying human error contribution, especially in the context of the upcoming implementation of autonomous merchant vessels. The objective of the research discussed in the passage is to examine the sources of the widely held belief in the impact of human error on maritime accidents and to verify this belief through a literature review centered around Rothblum's paper.

The passage raises thought-provoking questions about the reliability of referencing non-original data and the confusion surrounding terminology in the study of human error in maritime accidents. By addressing these issues, it encourages researchers to critically examine the sources of their data and the definitions they employ.
The passage effectively emphasizes the importance of analyzing the causes of maritime accidents beyond simply assigning blame. It highlights the need to identify latent causes and systemic factors that contribute to accidents, thereby promoting a more comprehensive approach to accident investigation.
The passage could benefit from providing more concrete examples or case studies to illustrate the impact of human error in maritime accidents. Additionally, it would be valuable to explore alternative viewpoints on the role of autonomous ships in reducing accidents and the challenges they may present.

In conclusion, the passage underscores the significance of analyzing human error in maritime accidents to improve safety. It encourages researchers to critically evaluate the sources of their data and addresses the ambiguity in terminology surrounding human error. By conducting a literature review centered around Rothblum's paper, the research aims to verify the widely held belief in the high impact of human error on maritime accidents. Overall, the passage presents valuable insights into the complex nature of accidents in the maritime industry and the importance of understanding human factors for enhancing safety.
.
.
.
.
.
In this study, the authors conducted a literature review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The purpose of the review was to gather information on the state of knowledge in a specific domain, focusing on one particular paper and its network of references.

The authors used Google Scholar (GS) as their information source, despite its reported limitations for scholarly analysis, because the central paper they were examining was not indexed by other databases like Web of Knowledge or Scopus.

A total of 324 documents citing the central paper were retrieved from GS and reviewed. The authors also included other documents referenced by the reviewed papers if they discussed the human error rate in maritime accidents. This process resulted in the creation of secondary, tertiary, and quaternary samples. Documents that were found to be unrelated to the maritime domain upon closer examination were discarded.

The eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review were not limited by publication time, except for the requirement that the documents be published in English. All types of documents discussing maritime-related topics were considered, including journal articles, conference papers, technical reports, and theses.

The selection process involved screening the documents for eligibility and then reviewing them manually by the author. The collected data included document titles, publication dates, whether they described a study on human contribution to accidents, methods and taxonomies used, obtained results, whether the human error-related figures were questioned, and references to other potentially eligible sources.

The main outcome of the review was the identification of documents investigating the human contribution to maritime accidents and reporting the rate of human contribution to these accidents. Potential biases and limitations of the study were also discussed.

The information collected from the review will be presented in the form of tables and descriptive information. The materials used for the review included a total of 292 documents, with the breakdown of document types shown in Table 2. The publication dates of the reviewed documents ranged from 2001 to 2020, with an additional 14 documents published between 1931 and 2000. The results of the analysis will be presented in Section 3 of the study.

In conclusion, this section provides an overview of the methods and materials used for the literature review conducted in the study. It outlines the search strategy, eligibility criteria, selection process, data collection process, and the expected outcomes of the review. The section also presents the sizes of the different samples used in the review and the breakdown of document types included.