Review Reports
by
- Chongwei Xin 1,2,
- Fuxing Jiang 1 and
- Yan Chen 3,*
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Nikita Babyr Reviewer 2: Gan Feng Reviewer 3: Marat Khayrutdinov
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has a number of significant flaws that need to be corrected. The corrections listed below are necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript, to enhance the ease of perception of the material presented, and to increase the interest of the reader.
1) There are errors in the title of the publication: "Anslysis of coal floor fault activation....". The title of the manuscript is vague and does not reflect the essence of the study. From my point of view, the key issue is: "safety and efficient coal mining", so this should preferably be reflected in the title.
This needs to be corrected.
2) From my point of view, the keywords do not fully reflect the whole essence of the study. Keywords allow the reader to quickly find the necessary material, and the author the opportunity to popularize his research, as well as increase interest in it and increase citations.
But if this number of keywords satisfies the requirement of the journal, this observation is advisory in nature.
3) The annotation is not quite right. It is very fuzzy and is designed incorrectly. It seems that the authors have taken certain phrases out of the context of their research and put them in the abstract. The abstract should clearly state the purpose of the research and its importance to society (that is, to characterize the problem), identify the research methods and materials, and state conclusions clearly and concisely. The abstract lacks a "starting point," that is, information about previous research (one sentence is sufficient). From my point of view, in the abstract, such information begins with the statement: "Previous research has established that ....".
3.1) It is desirable to avoid narrative text in the abstract.
3.2) Try to use words and phrases: analyzed; conducted; studied; developed; proposed; established and others. It is desirable to begin sentences in the abstract with these words and phrases.
3.3) At the end of the abstract it is necessary to specify the final result obtained by the authors, for example: A model has been developed that allows ...; A dependence has been established that is ...; An effective system (technology) has been proposed, and so on.
The abstract should be redone.
4) The manuscript has an insufficient list of references (only 21 references). There is no full coverage of research in terms of geography of citations. There are no references to the world experience in this field or related areas, especially to the works of Eastern European, Ukrainian or Russian scientists.
The authors did not conduct a sufficient literature review referring only to the study of the problem in their region: "Therefore, study on the coal floor fault activation is an urgent need for the safety mining in China...".
The list of references is intended to demonstrate the depth of the author's study of the material, the relevance and interest of his research.
4.1) It is necessary to increase the number of references;
4.2) It is necessary to add references to topical studies for the last 3-5 years;
4.3) It is necessary to add studies of scientists from different countries.
In view of the fact that you are publishing your manuscript in an international publication, it is necessary to demonstrate international interest and relevance of this issue. This can be done by analyzing the research of scientists from different countries.
The authors of the manuscript write: "Cheng et al. [19] analyzed the space-time distribution of microseismic events in a coal mine to identify the potential water inrush areas in coal floor ...." referring to Cheng, A.; Gao, Y.; Liang, X.; Liu, C.; Wu, Q.; Zhu, Q. Identification of potential water inrush areas in coal floor by using microseismic 423 monitoring technique. Chinese J. Geot. Eng. 2014, 36, 1727-1732, doi: 10.11779/CJGE201409021. However, the original language of the publication is Chinese, so readers will not be able to read the text of this publication.
4.4) Group references - group references should be avoided, for example: "According to the statistics, more than 80% of the water inrush in is related to the fault [1-4]". Incorrect usage of references. As a rule, in highly ranked journals, each citation should include no more than 3 references. Each referenced paper is unique and the studies to which you are referring deserve more appropriate and careful attention to demonstrate (and prove) their importance in current research. It is necessary to demonstrate in detail the nature of each study and its relevance to your work.
4.5) Taking into account the comments, I would like to note that the authors very poorly disclosed the main subject of the study. In recent years, conducted a lot of work on the study of safe, efficient and sustainable mining of the coal mine face, which are really very relevant to scientists from around the world.
For example,
- Gabov, V. V., Zadkov, D. A., Babyr, N. V., & Xie, F. (2021). Nonimpact rock pressure regulation with energy recovery into the hydraulic system of the longwall powered support. Eurasian Mining, 36(2), 55-59. doi:10.17580/em.2021.02.12. This paper Examined the advisability of increasing the adaptability of the powered support within advanced high-powered mechanized longwall face complexes to mining-geological conditions that change as the blocks are extracted.
- Gendler, S. G., Gabov, V. V., Babyr, N. V., & Prokhorova, E. A. (2022). Justification of engineering solutions on reduction of occupational traumatism in coal longwalls. Mining Informational and Analytical Bulletin, (1), 5-19. doi:10.25018/0236_1493_2022_1_0_5. This study aims to justify engineering solutions in reduction of occupational traumatism in case of roof caving and rock falls in coal longwalls.
List of references needs to be updated and ADDED!
5) In the analysis of geological and technical conditions it is necessary to specify not only physical and mechanical parameters of the rock, but also the characteristics of mining conditions in the mine, what equipment is used and so on...
It is necessary to improve.
6) The authors use numerical simulation. From my point of view it is necessary to specify the boundary conditions for simulation.
It is necessary to improve.
7) Conclusion is the conclusion of the study made by the authors, without repetition. Such a presentation of the material reduces the ease of perception by the reader of the information presented. The error of wrong formation of the conclusions is a consequence of wrong presentation of the introduction, due to the fact that they did not formulate the goals and objectives when writing the introduction.
The conclusions should briefly characterize the result of the study, for example
As a result of the study
(1) the dependence is obtained.....
(2) it is found that......
(3) and so on.
The conclusion should be redone.
8) Additional remarks - there are graphical errors in the work:
- Figure 1. Add the descriptions "a" and "b" as in Figure 5.
- Figure 2, 5. The text is not well seen.
- Table 1. No need to indicate Property if for all faults.
It is necessary to improve.
Summary: Manuscript is not a complete research paper. Corrections are needed. The chosen research topic is indeed relevant. From my point of view, the authors failed to present their research competently and clearly, which greatly reduced its value and deteriorated the ease of perception of the material presented.
From my point of view, the manuscript cannot be published in the open press without correcting the deficiencies indicated in my recommendation.
Author Response
The detailed response to reviewers can be seen in the appendix.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, microseismic monitoring, numerical simulation and field observation are used to invert the activation process of floor faults under the influence of mining. The results show that fault activation can be divided into five stages: pre-mining influence stage, initial mining influence stage, fault activation sign stage, fault activation stage and fault activation fading stage. The extraction stage of fault activation signs is the pregnant stage, and the research results have guiding significance for similar projects. I suggest that this paper can be accepted in Sustainability. However, before publication, there are some minor revisions that should be considered.
（1）The network shape of the microseismic monitoring system is a three-dimensional space shape. The paper only explains the plane distribution shape of the network, and does not explain the vertical shape of the network, which needs to be supplemented in detail.
（2）The microseismic monitoring and positioning results are closely related to the wave velocity model. The paper only gives the calibration results of the positioning accuracy of the system, and does not specify the determination process of the wave velocity model, which needs to be improved.
（3）The secondary kernel function is introduced to expand the microseismic event from point to surface. What is the specific reason for the improvement of its accuracy? Please explain in detail.
（4）From the perspective of change rate of microseismic monitoring indicators, there are obvious differences between the change rate of microseismic monitoring indicators at the stage of fault activation and the initial stage of mining impact: the change rate analysis of indicators can be added to support the stage division.
（5）Where are the physical and mechanical parameters of rock strata in numerical simulation? It needs to be explained clearly.
Author Response
The detailed response to reviewers is uploaded in the appendix
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript "Anslysis of coal floor fault activation inducing water inrush using microseismic monitoring – a case study in Zhaogu No.1 Coal Mine of Henan Province, China" by Chongwei Xin, Fuxing Jiang, Changzhi Zhai and Yan Chen was submitted for peer review.
I read the submitted manuscript with great interest. The authors turned to a very urgent problem: study the dynamic characteristics and rules of floor fault activation under the influence of mining.
The manuscript has 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.
Overall, the manuscript does not provide anything relevant to the current scientific knowledge.
A resubmission with complete characterization and laboratory tests on research is suggested. Major revision might be sufficient if these tests have been performed. Otherwise, the paper should be considered as rejected in the present form.
1.) From my point of view, there are very few keywords. In addition, the keywords should be more direct and related to the manuscript content. Keywords enable the reader to quickly search for the necessary material and enable the author to popularize 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. It seems that the authors have taken certain phrases from the text and thus formed the abstract. 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. There is no "starting point" in the abstract, that is, information about previous studies (one sentence is enough). 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.
The abstract should be revised.
3.) The manuscript has an insufficient reference list (21 references in total). In addition there is no comprehensive coverage of studies in terms of geography of citations. The authors are guided only by the scientific experience of one country, which is not enough for publication in an international journal. There are no references to international studies in the field. There is also no analysis of the work performed over the past three years, and only two works performed over the past five years have been analyzed.
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 – is not enough.
3.2.) Relevance – with the availability of research in recent years – is not enough (no papers published in the last three years).
3.3.) Interest – with the availability of research by scientists from different countries - is not enough (absent).
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 over the past 3-5 years to show geographical (general/global) interest and relevance.
The List of References needs to be completed.
4.) From my point of view, the study seems incomplete. The authors study the characteristics and probability of faulting that increase the water flow into the mine. However, it must be studied for some purpose. It seems to me that in this situation, the study is carried out to avoid mine flooding and ensure safe mining. That is, this is precisely the purpose of the study, and the study of faults is a means. In this regard, the abstract, introduction, and title should be changed.
5.) In the introduction when analyzing previous studies, the authors make inaccuracies or provide information that overloads the text and often their claims are not accompanied with evidence. It is important for readers to know the essence (main idea) of the research you are referring to when analyzing previous work. In the introduction, it is necessary to analyze the previously completed work and note what has been done, what are the shortcomings, and what has been done incorrectly. Such shortcomings are present throughout the Introduction. Authors need to revise the introduction, adjust, and supplement their statements with evidence.
6.) From my point of view, the authors abuse the names of scientists when mentioning the study, for example: Liu et al [11], Zhou et al. [12] and so on. A reference [11], [12] is sufficient. If the reader is interested in the name of the researcher, then it is easy to refer to the references list. It is important for the reader to know the essence (main idea) of the disclosed issue, not the name of the researcher.
7.) I would recommend avoiding group references, for example [1-4], [5-8]. From my point of view, allowed up to three; more than three references are not acceptable and must be deciphered. Each paper you refer is unique and the studies you refer deserve more proper and careful review to demonstrate (and prove) its importance for the current research. It is necessary to demonstrate in detail the essence of each study and their need for your work. It has already been noted in recommendation (4) that you have many statements without indicating awareness. You will avoid group references by correcting this fact.
8.) At the end of the introduction, there is no brief conclusion of the analytical study of earlier papers. The authors did not summarize their analysis and did not identify unresolved issues. This conclusion should make it possible 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. It needs to be improved.
9.) Considering the comments (3), (4) and (5), I would like to note that the authors have very poorly disclosed the main subject of the study. There have been many studies on reducing water flows into the mine by controlling the rock mass disturbance during mining. Such measures increase the safety during the mineral extraction and warn the underground enterprise from flooding.
For example,
9.1) Khayrutdinov, M.M.; Golik, V.I.; Aleksakhin, A.V.; Trushina, E.V.; Lazareva, N.V.; Aleksakhina, Y.V. Proposal of an Algorithm for Choice of a Development System for Operational and Environmental Safety in Mining. Resources 2022, 11, 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources11100088.
The article describes the algorithm for choosing the optimal development system for the safe mining. The authors proposed a zonal division of the mass to determine the initial structure of a multi-agent system. The authors start from the original static point, that is, the initial source of perturbation (destruction). The results of the practical implementation of the proposed mathematical model are presented and an algorithm is compiled. Strain changes and stress concentration are key criteria in the proposed mathematical model. The proposed algorithm allows to determine the preferred underground development system.
9.2) Muzik J., Seidlova A., Kudelcikova M., Kongar-Syuryun C., Mihalik J. Flood Hazard Calculation by Using a Digital Terrain Model. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 906(1), 012067. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/906/1/012067.
The article calculates the accumulation of water depending on the terrain. This knowledge can be extrapolated when studying the sharply varying characteristics of the water-protective layer. This will make it much easier to identify areas of disturbance and faulting.
9.3) Gendler S.G., Prokhorova E.A. Assessment of the cumulative impact of occupational injuries and diseases on the state of labor protection in the coal industry. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull 2022, 10-2, 105—116. https://doi.org/10.25018/0236_1493_2022_102_0_105.
In this study, the authors study injuries at mining coal enterprises from various types of accidents. A set of factors influencing the injury rate is identified. This includes an examination of the cause-effect relationships that increase or decrease the injury rate when increasing water flows into an underground mine.
9.4) Rybak J., Kongar-Syuryun C., Tyulyaeva Y., Khayrutdinov A., Akinshin I. Geomechanical substantiation of parameters of technology for mining salt deposits with a backfill. Mining Science 2021, 28, 19-32. https://doi.org/10.37190/msc212802.
The paper presents the analysis of underground mining voids on the occurrence of subvertical disturbance and their influence on the water-protective layer using numerical modelling based on the finite element method (FEM) in FLAC 3D software. Contour graphs of stresses are constructed, and strain changes are studied. Based on the data obtained, a method was proposed to minimize the development of subvertical fracturing, which will preserve the water-protective layer and prevent the mine from flooding.
If the authors become familiar with the works presented in (9.1), (9.2), (9.3), (9.4) they will be able to properly form the introduction, enrich their manuscript with international research by scientists from Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Russia, Germany and demonstrate the depth of their material, as well as eliminate the remarks (3), (4) and (5).
10.) From my point of view, it is necessary to indicate who made Fig. 1? If this is the author's merit, then it is necessary to indicate: done by the authors; if this is a borrowed drawing, then it is necessary to indicate the source.
11) In my view, the conclusion is wrongly formed. The authors briefly describe the research in Conclusion, which is incorrect. Part of the information is the Subject of the study and Methods (lines 345-351), and part of the information is Results and Discussions (for example, lines 351-355 and 358-368)
Conclusion – is summary of the study without repeating the wording given earlier in the manuscript. Conclusions should briefly characterize the result of the study, for example:
As a result of the study
(1) the dependence of … was obtained.
(2) it was found that ...
(3) and so on.
The conclusion needs to be revised.
Summary: The manuscript is not a finished research work. The corrections are needed. The chosen research topic is relevant. 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, the manuscript cannot be published in the open press without correction in accordance with my suggestions.
Author Response
The detailed response to reviewers can be seen in appendix below.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript "Anslysis of coal floor fault activation inducing water inrush using microseismic monitoring – a case study in Zhaogu No.1 Coal Mine of Henan Province, China" by Chongwei Xin, Fuxing Jiang, Changzhi Zhai and Yan Chen was submitted for second review.
In my first review for this manuscript, I noted that major revision was required. Otherwise, the paper should be considered as rejected in the present form. As it follows from the revised version, the authors did not modify the manuscript properly despite quite detailed recommendations from my side. From the revised version and the responses to my recommendations, it appears that the authors have treated everything formally. Therefore, I think that the manuscript cannot be accepted for publication and should be rejected on the following grounds:
1.) The authors have retained the style and structure of the abstract despite my detailed recommendations.
2.) At the end of the introduction there is still no brief conclusion of the analytical study of previous studies, in accordance with my recommendation no. 8.
3.) The authors have not considered comment no. 7. In this case, from my point of view, it is not worth paying attention to "phenomenon exists in the papers published in this journal", as phenomenon is not always true, but some exception to the rule.
4.) The authors still have not proved the international interest of the studies (Recommendation nos. 3.3 and 9). I recommended several studies to the authors for their review. To facilitate their work, I described in detail how these studies can be useful and how they can improve the manuscript submitted for review. The authors are free to use my recommendations or to choose other studies at their discretion. They have done neither. The authors had one international paper published in 2009 and now they have added only one international study of 2009. Thus, there is no analysis of international experience, which is unacceptable for a manuscript to be published in an international publication.
5.) The relevance of the work is weakly proven. The authors have added references to six studies conducted in the last three years, which is only 17% of the total reference list. This is very little. In my view, should be considered 30%.
6.) The authors have not provided a reasoned explanation for not analyzing studies carried out in other countries.
7.) The authors ignored my recommendation no. 10. In response to it, they have noted: "Fig. 1 is done by the authors. Because Fig. 1 is original, the source of the figure is not indicated in the revised version". If the authors refer to my recommendation, they will notice that I indicated: "If this is the author's merit, then it is necessary to indicate: done by the authors…". Thus, in the case of plagiarism of a given figure, all responsibility is removed from the journal or publisher and falls entirely on the authors. If the figure was done by the authors, they have nothing to fear and must state this in the caption: done by the authors. In addition, (a) and (b) in figure 1 are not explained in the text or in the figure caption.
8.) The authors have taken a formal approach to recommendation no. 11. I recommended excluding some of the information relating to other sections. This has not been done.
Summary: The manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in its present form and should be rejected.
Author Response
The detailed response to reviewer is uploaded as attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript is better now. But I have 2 comments.
1) I think it would be better if you replace "Reference [...]" with something else. For example: "The paper/article [...] describes ..." or "Previous studies [...] found/established" and so on.
2) You have 5 international studies which is 14%. Please try to include more articles of international activity in your future works. It is desirable for an article to have at least 25-30% international references.
All the Best and Good Luck with your research!
Author Response
The manuscript is better now. But I have 2 comments.
Q1. I think it would be better if you replace "Reference [...]" with something else. For example: "The paper/article [...] describes ..." or "Previous studies [...] found/established" and so on.
Ans: Revision at Page 2 Line 44~Line 66, Page 3 Line 73~Line 84, Line 90~Line 110, Page 4 Line 113~Line 122.
Thanks for reviewer’s comment. We have replace the "Reference [...]" with "The paper/article [...] describes ..." in the revised manuscript.
Q2. You have 5 international studies which is 14%. Please try to include more articles of international activity in your future works. It is desirable for an article to have at least 25-30% international references.
Ans: Revision at Page 2 Line 46~Line 48, Line 69~Line 72; Page 3 Line 87~Line 90; Page 20 Line 488~Line 490; Page 21 Line 514~Line 519, Line 538~Line 541.
Thanks for reviewer’s advice. We have increased the number of references of international studies in revised manuscript, accounting for 26 % of the total number of references.