Risk Assessment of Coal Mine Flood Disasters Based on Projection Pursuit Clustering Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript "Risk assessment of coal mine flood disasters based on projection pursuit clustering model" by Zuo Sun, Yingjie Liu, Qingjie Qi, Wengang Liu, Dan Li, Jiamei Chai was submitted for review.
I read the submitted manuscript with great interest. The authors turned to a very urgent problem: the probability of flooding coal mines in areas of increased occurrence of natural disasters. The authors have done a very good study, but the manuscript has several significant flaws that need to be corrected. Correction of the shortcomings listed below must be done to improve the quality of the manuscript, enhance the ease of perception of the presented material and increase the interest of a readers.
1.) From my point of view, there are very few keywords. Keywords enable the reader to quickly search for the necessary material and enable the author to popularise their research and increase interest and citations. But if this number of keywords satisfies the requirement of the journal, this comment is advisory.
2.) The abstract is not quite formed correctly. It is very blurry and framed incorrectly. The abstract should clearly indicate the purpose of the study, its importance for society (i.e. to characterize the problem), identify the methods and materials of the study, and the conclusions should be clearly and briefly formulated. It seems that the authors have taken certain phrases from the text and thus formed the abstract. For example, the first three sentences are information after which confirmation is required (reference). This presentation of information is more suitable for introduction. From my point of view, in the abstract, such information begins with the statement: "Previously conducted studies have established that ...".
2.1) It is desirable to avoid narrative text in the abstract.
2.2) Try to use words and phrases: an analysis has been carried out; studied; developed; proposed; established and so on. It is advisable to start sentences in the abstract with these words and phrases.
2.3) At the end of the abstract, it is necessary to indicate the final result obtained by the authors, for example: A model has been developed that allows ...; A dependence has been established which is...; A pattern has been revealed...; An efficient system (technology) has been proposed, and so on.
2.4.) The abstract should briefly display the methods.
The abstract should be revised.
3.) The manuscript has a very meager list of references in terms of geography. Very weak geography of citations. The list of references is intended to demonstrate the depth of the author's study of the material, the relevance and interest of their research.
3.1.) The depth of study is demonstrated with the number of references (31 references) - on the verge of sufficiency.
3.2.) Relevance – with the availability of research in recent years – there is about 40% of papers in the last five years - on the verge of sufficiency.
3.3.) Interest – with the availability of research by scientists from different countries - (I only counted two works, which is very few) - is not enough. Since you are publishing your manuscript in an international publication, it is necessary to demonstrate the international relevance and interest of this issue. This can be done by analyzing the studies of scientists from different countries. It is imperative to supplement the list of references with studies of scientists from different countries to show interest and relevance.
The List of References needs to be completed.
4.) Considering the remark (3), I would like to note that the authors have very poorly disclosed the prediction and assessment the risk of any natural or man-made disasters at enterprises in China and elsewhere in the world. In the introduction, the authors described in sufficient detail the facts of flooding of coal mines as a result of natural disasters. Very little attention has been given to assessing or predicting the risks of any situation in mining enterprises. It is necessary to refer to all existing and previously proposed risk assessment models, and not only as a result of natural disasters.
In recent years, a lot of work has been carried out on predicting and assessing the risks at mining enterprises, and mechanisms have been proposed to reduce their occurrence.
For example,
4.1) In a joint Chinese-Russian study, the authors investigate the manifestation of natural and man-made geodynamic phenomena in the eastern regions of Russia and China:
Yu, L.; Ignatov, Y.; Ivannikov, A.; Khotchenkov, E.; Krasnoshtanov, D. Common features in the manifestation of natural and induced geodynamic events in the eastern regions of Russia and China. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 324(1), 012004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/324/1/012004
4.2.) In a joint Polish-German-Russian study, the authors assess the risks of developing subvertical disturbance as a result of mining operations, predict the possibility of the water-protective strata destruction and the likelihood of flooding of a mine that extracts potassium-magnesium salts, and also propose ways to reduce the risks of accidents:
Rybak, J.; Khayrutdinov, M.M.; Kuziev, D.A.; Kongar-Syuryun, Ch.B.; Babyr, N.V. Prediction of the geomechanical state of the rock mass when mining salt deposits with stowing. Journal of Mining Institute 2022, 253, 61-70. https://doi.org/10.31897/PMI.2022.2.
4.3) In the study below, the authors propose a rational approach to controlling underground mining operations in complex hydrogeological and geomechanical conditions, based on risk assessment.
Krasyukova, E.; Aynbinder, I.; Ivannikov, A. A rational approach to the management of underground mining in complex hydrogeological and geomechanical conditions based on a risk assessment. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., 2021, 684, 012006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/684/1/012006.
As follows from the presented works (4.1) - (4.3), the authors of the manuscript submitted for review missed a large layer of international studies related to the risk assessment of accidents at mining enterprises. If the authors familiarize themselves with the works presented in (4.1), (4.2), (4.3), they will be able to properly form the introduction, enrich their manuscript with international studies of Poland, Germany and Russia, demonstrate the depth of the study of the material and also eliminate the remark (3.3).
5.) At the end of the introduction, there is no conclusion on the analysis carried out. This conclusion allows to characterize the actual question posed, the purpose of the study and the tasks to be solved to achieve this goal. For example: Analyzing the above, it can be noted that ... is a very topical issue. Therefore, the purpose of this study is ... and to achieve this, it is necessary to solve the following tasks: 1); 2); ... Such a conclusion allows the reader to understand the vector of the study, and the authors to correctly formulate the conclusions.
6.) From my point of view, the conclusions are completely formed incorrectly. There is a lot of redundant information in the conclusions related to other sections. For example:
6.1) the first six lines of conclusions refer to the object of study and methods;
6.2) in the conclusion (1) there is a lot of information regarding the factors used in risk assessment. This applies to the methods section. The authors have previously voiced these factors, therefore there is no need to repeat the conclusions;
6.3) in the conclusion (2) information about how the weight of each index is calculated is also redundant for the conclusions. Previously, the authors have already indicated this in the methods;
6.4) conclusion (3) is not clear to me at all. Everything that the authors write does not follow from the essence of the study;
6.5) conclusion (4) is a set of well-known phrases. "Take initiatives to contact local meteorological and emergency management departments" is a common phrase. It would be a conclusion if the authors indicate that they propose the implementation of a common prediction and monitoring program (specify which one) to strengthen contacts with special services. Or "establish drainage, waterproof, and drainage systems", if the authors specify which drainage systems to create and according to which grid, then this is specific, otherwise it is a general phrase.
Such remarks on all conclusions.
This mistake is a consequence of the shortcomings in (5).
Summary: The manuscript is not a finished research work. Corrections are needed. Despite the rather impressive list of comments, the authors carried out a good research work. The scientific component of the manuscript is really of interest to the reader. From my point of view, the authors failed to present their research correctly and clearly, which reduced its value and worsened the ease of perception of the material presented.
From my point of view, before publication, the author should make the revisions according to my suggestions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for all your affirmation and valuable comments on this paper. All authors of this article have read your comments carefully and are inspired. We have revised the article and hope to improve it further to your satisfaction. Please see the attachment for specific modification.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article deals with an important issue in the field of safety in coal fossil fuels. The research is wide-ranging and properly done, but in the current version, the whole thing looks more like a research report rather than a scientific article. So if authors want to publish a text, they must make the following corrections: 1. The issue of flood risk is not new. Much has been written about this in the international literature. Meanwhile, the article lacks a section relating to literary studies, and there are only 31 items in literature. 2. Due to the above, it is not known what value the results of the analyzes carried out by the authors have in relation to the research conducted so far. This must be clearly highlighted in the introduction and conclusion. 3. The authors also do not conduct a discussion (before the conclusions) that would allow to place the research and methodology in the current trend of researching threats in mining. This needs to be added and completed. 4. The article also makes little reference to the topic of sustainability, i.e. the main profile of the journal. 5. At the end, a few sentences should be added about the universality and limitations of the proposed methodology.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for all your affirmation and valuable comments on this paper. All authors of this article have read your comments carefully and are inspired. We have revised the article and hope to improve it further to your satisfaction. Please see the attachment for specific modification.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1) para 1- "china has witnessed one of...."- what incident?, where?, when? and what are the consequences?
2) Fig. 1 - source?
3) NaTech- Is it the acronym of Natural and Technological Disasters? (to my knowledge, NaTech is stand for Natural Hazards Triggering Technological Accidents). Please recheck
4) Case histories which have been mentioned in the text - better to present it in a tabular form
5) Para 4 - AHP?. Please state the full name and use an acronym in the subsequence text
6) Para 5- I-AHP?...same comment as above.
7) Fig. 5, Fig. 6 & Fig. 7 - What do the colors represent?.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for all your affirmation and valuable comments on this paper. All authors of this article have read your comments carefully and are inspired. We have revised the article and hope to improve it further to your satisfaction. Please see the attachment for specific modification.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript "Risk assessment of coal mine flood disasters based on projection pursuit clustering model" by Zuo Sun, Yingjie Liu, Qingjie Qi, Wengang Liu, Dan Li, Jiamei Chai was submitted for second review.
As can be seen from the submitted manuscript and the explanatory note to the review, the authors did a lot of work to make changes in accordance with the comments.
The revised manuscript is a completed scientific study on a highly relevant topic: the probability of flooding coal mines in areas of increased occurrence of natural disasters. The revised version of the manuscript, in my opinion, fully satisfies the requirements of a scientific article and can be published in the open press.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article could be published.
