Research on Comprehensive Evaluation Indicators and Methods of World-Class Open-Pit Coal Mines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your contribution.

The researched manuscript is strategically and sequentially well-developed to offer a complete view of the main factors that may influence the construction of world-class open-pit coal mines.

The choice of the method to be utilized, the Fuzzy DEMATEL is quite appropriate, and indeed, the application of the said approach is innovative, especially for the purpose of identifying cause factors that will help in the enhancement of some outcome-based performance measures.

The manuscript does seem to be a good manuscript, but it might need slight to moderate editing to sharpen the text presentation.

Furthermore, the evaluation indicators are very clear, however, giving more details and descriptions of the application of such indicator in real life scenario would enhance the practical relevance of the study.

These points may be nullified by unsatisfactory description of how the theoretical framework disclosed in the article can be practically applied: no cases or examples of beneficial use of the offered framework have been included.

Furthermore, going through the simplicity, comprehensiveness and emphasis on current trends of the different sources used will further enhance the authority of the current manuscript.

Altogether, this research can be deemed as valuable contribution to the overall academic discourse and effective practices in the sphere of sustainable and efficient coal mining industry.

Kindest regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English used in the manuscript is quite good, but there is a necessity of moderate revisions aiming at the increase in the comprehensibility of the text.

There are some of the sentences they provided and it is noted that they are a little complicated and could be shortened.

Furthermore, there are few grammatical and syntactical flaws that are needed to be rectified and there are few phrasal disturbances as well.

In general, it explicit in most part and a little less technical, so it is suitable for presenting the research outcomes and the claims made in it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I`m reviewing the second version of the manuscript and having the following remarks on it:

 

1. The main purpose of this work is poorly supported by basic references. In its present form it looks like a bachelor's thesis, not a future scientific work. The introduction is based on 11 references, but it seems that the text does not show a clear logical chain on the topic of the manuscript. 

2. Materials and methods' have 3 levels of headings, but have no binding text in the very begibibg. Sub-chapter 2.1.1 (lines 78-108) explains the construction approach for the model and looks like sporadic text with references 12-16; the scheme (line 90) is not mentioned at all in the text. What did the authors mean by this?

In chapter 2.3, the authors write "According to (1.11)" (line 183); what is 1.11? Then the authors mention Tables 3 and 4 (lines 184, 186, 187), but where are they?

3. In the opinion of the reviewers, the chapter 'Results' does not follow logically from two previous chapters and looks like a completely new text. 

4. After all this, the 'Conclusions' look like a strange volume of text, not scientific results.

Based on this, the reviewers are of the opinion that this manuscript is a very strange volume of words, based on a poor foundation, and therefore it should be rejected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' article is devoted to an important and topical issue related to the study of complex indicators and methods for assessing world-class coal mines.

Despite the constant efforts of developed countries of the world community aimed at finding unconventional ways to meet ever-increasing energy needs, coal has been and remains one of the most reliable resource components of the fuel and energy complex, being a real coolant in the electric power industry of many developed countries. Thus, the share of coal generation in Poland, China, and the USA is about 96, 80, and 50%, respectively. In world practice, there is a stable trend towards increasing the degree of coal processing with an improvement in its quality and an expansion of the range of coal products. This is due, in particular, to the rather strict requirements for coal quality that have developed on the world market: ash content of 8–12%, moisture less than 8–9%, sulfur content less than 0.5%, calorific value over 6000 kcal/kg. As research and experience of the most developed mining countries show, at the present stage the basis of innovative development of the coal industry should not just be an increase in coal production volumes, but also deep processing of coals with the production of a wide range of coal products with new consumer properties. According to experts, coal processing is a strategically important area not only for the further development of the coal industry, but also for the entire economy of the country. In essence, this means abandoning the practice of exporting raw materials in favor of the production and export of coal products with high added value. The widespread introduction of coal processing technologies and the integrated use of coal will ensure not only an increase in the economic efficiency and competitiveness of coal mining, but also a significant reduction in the negative impact of mining on the environment, and the organization of production of a number of new products will contribute to the development of related industries. In order to preserve the potential of coal resources and improve the environmental safety of mining operations under these conditions, it seems necessary to introduce into the practice of designing and developing coal deposits the use of development systems and measures that ensure the safety of certain grades of coal for their subsequent deep processing, as well as the extraction of rare elements (based on a preliminary geological and economic assessment of coal reserves). Successful implementation of deep processing technologies and complex use of coal, especially at the stage of their development and implementation, as foreign experience shows, is possible with the participation of the federal budget, incentives and state support for economic entities (in the form of tax breaks, state guarantees, budget investments, loans, etc.).

The studies carried out by the authors are of interest to readers in the field under consideration.

 

However, it would be necessary to clarify a number of comments that are available to the article:

1. The introduction should provide data on coal production not only in China but also in other countries and present forecast values for the short and long term. It would also be possible to present a set of measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions due to the operation of coal mines.

2. In section "2.1.1. Model Construction Approach", it is necessary to conduct a more detailed comparative analysis of the DEMATEL method used in comparison with other methods and show the advantages of its use to achieve the goals set in the presented work. In particular, it would be possible to dwell in more detail on the methods of expert assessments and cluster analysis used to solve complex problems.

3. In the block diagram presented on page 3, it is necessary to give a detailed description of each stage.

4. It is necessary to present mathematical models that allow calculating and forecasting coal production depending on the most significant input parameters under consideration (Table 5), as well as the corresponding determination coefficients.

5. It is necessary to emphasize in the work that the analysis of the results of scientific research allows us to identify the main trends in the development of coal processing technologies and complex use in the world: full enrichment of coking coals and a constant increase in the share of enrichment of power-generating coals; an increase in the consumption of enriched coals and coal-water fuel in coal-fired heat and electricity generation; increased interest in the problem of producing synthetic liquid fuel from coal, due primarily to rising oil prices; - focus on investment projects for coal processing with the least science-intensive and less expensive technologies (thermocoal, thermocoke, thermobriquettes, energy coal complexes, etc.); intensification of research on the problems of extracting rare elements from coals and their processing products.

6. It is necessary to enlarge the letter designations in Figure 3 and provide their decoding.

7. In the work, place greater emphasis on the scientific results obtained by the authors in the presented work, and also present a generalized methodology for conducting experiments for which it would be possible to obtain a corresponding patent.

8. In the conclusions, it is necessary to present specific practical results achieved in the work, as well as prospects for continuing the work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors adequately revised the manuscript. In present forn the content of the article has been improved: the structure became more transparent and understandable, and results representation looks more clear.

Thus, the manuscript, in reviewers opinion, can be accepted in present form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have substantially improved the article. The authors have answered my questions.

There is one small remark left. It would be good to increase the number of keywords to 5-6.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The formatting of the article is very confusing. Please reformat it before resubmitting it for review. it is lack of figures and case study. The major revision is needed. Journal of Coal, 2023, 48(S1): 401-410._what is the journal name?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

it is too hard to read

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The research should not refer to political slogans like "building a socialist modernized country" as these are not statements that can be verified with the use of any scientific methodology. Such sentences cause an ethical concern about the study.

2. The paper seems to be rather a summary derived from the bigger study (a PhD thesis?) and several important elements lack (like the description of symbols used in the equations (1)-(16), methodology of grouping the influencing factors, at least the basic data of the analysed coal mines (5.Case application) to facilitate the readers any possibility of comparing them). Therefore it is impossible for the reader to verify the reasoning.

3. The referenced literature should not be cited in large groups (like [5-31] - row 123). These citations must be rearranged.

4. There are several inconsistencies in the text (see: the description of scoring levels (rows 80-81) and the language operator in the Table 1. ). Just beneath the beginning of the row 84 looks strangely. The layout of tables and text is poor. The paper needs the authors' proofreading to remove such drawbacks.

5. However the most important issue of the research is the questionable method of implementation the fuzzy numbers for evaluating open pits. Fuzzy numbers and - in general - fuzzy sets can be applied when no exact calculations are available.  There exist optimisation algoritms developed for open pit mine planning and design. These algoritms (e.g. Lerchs-Grossmann) should be referenced and discussed in any paper that deals with "evaluation of World-class Open-pit Coal mines". I believe that these algoritms could be successfully incorporated into the proposed comprehensive evaluation.Otherwise the authors should explain why they ignore the existing and widely used open pit optimisation methods.

6. The paper should also contain an explanation (or clear references to other papers) of inclusion the proposed targets and their criteria. Some of them (e.g. "Total number of patents" or "proportion of bachelor's degree or above") seem to be purely irrelevant to the evaluation of the mine while the others (like "qualification rate of coal quality") are too simplified instead of adopting a set of specific parameters (e.g. a list of quality parameters of coal).

7. I understand that implementation of all suggestions would add several pages to the research. Maybe it should be divided into 2 papers:

- the first one could discuss and formulate the list of targets and criteria employed for th e comprehensive evaluation of the coal open pits,

- the second could  describe the method of evaluation with regard to accepted targets and criteria plus a case study - an evaluation of selected mines which parameters should be disclosed to let the reader follow the method.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Please find here below some comments to your paper:

 

The article applies the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Entropy Method and other methodologies to the study of the formation of world-class open-pit coal mines along with all parameters like quality of customer service, brand influence and business models. Although it cites existing researches and expert interviews, it needs to build a better bridge to previous theoretical frameworks and empirical studies in order to connect the present findings more explicitly to the broader literature.

 

Cited sources are applicable as they directly describe the approaches adopted (Analytical Hierarchy Process, Entropy Method) and the deciding factors during the construction of the world-class surface coal mines. That is, the article uses well-targeted references that are strongly related to the subject itself like Analytical Hierarchy Process, Entropy Method, and the set factors that control open-pit coal mines.

 

The methods such as AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) combined with the Entropy Method are clearly explained, revealing a powerful approach to weighting criteria in evaluation. Although the purpose of the paper is defined clearly, precision could be improved with regard to research questions, hypotheses and the overall framework.

 

The discussion of the key elements that are highlighted and the focus on the causal factors demonstrate a well thought out strategy when it comes to the selection of main elements that are vital for the creation of the World hallmark open pit coal pits. Moreover, the article would be made stronger if it engages in a more balanced discussion that considers the existence of limitations and counterarguments to make the argument compelling.

 

Although the article considers techniques and factors sufficiently in detail, the empirically presented results particularly the manner in which methods were applied as well as specific outcomes are not obviously portrayed. The use of more definite outcomes, including data analysis and interpretation, will highly contribute to the empirical aspect of the research.

 

The paper concludes with a comprehensive assessment, but it could have been better supported by linking the specific outcomes of the applied methodologies (AHP-Entropy method, Fuzzy-DEMATEL) to the recommendations and findings. While the essay provides a comprehensive description of the evaluation model and suggests results of the open-pit coal mine studies, the causal relationship between the data and the concluding recommendations may be clarified, thereby reinforcing the argument. Also, the integration of secondary literature which could bridge the findings to the other relevant fields would further ensure the credibility of the conclusions.

 

Kindest regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

From what I can see, the language of English in the document is cohesive and largely comprehensible. Perhaps, it testifies to the fact that the document is well-written from the point of view of language use. Without pointing out any explicit mistakes or a tense narrative character from the given text, I agree with only minor English language editing is needed.

 

 

In other words, I think there could possibly some grammatical or stylistic mistakes that are very usual of technical and academic writing for people, whose native tongue is not English. Nevertheless, the sentence structure and readability of the text appear to be preserved, thus the corrections, if required, may be minute and only focused on refining the document as opposed to doing major language revamp.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors,

The article presents a Fuzzy Dematel method which allows to refine the key factors that affect the construction of open-pit coal mines. The authors have provided a detailed characteristic of criteria and sufficient analysis. From the methodological point of view, the article is well written, however in my opinion there are three major editorial remarks that influence the whole structure.

 Remark 1.

Authors should re-write the abstract. They should provide the general description and major findings of the paper. In my opinion, a part of the abstract is closer to the introduction rather than the scientific abstract.

 Remark 2

Authors should also re-write the introduction section. I am missing a general discussion on the possible application of the Fuzzy Dematel method and the application of this method in mining. From a brief research, I was able to find several valid research papers on these subjects.

 Remark 3

Authors should evaluate the text in terms of editorial errors eg. lines 127, 128. Please correct the text.

 

To sum up. In my opinion, the structure of the paper should be improved. After this, the paper can be reconsidered for publishing.

Best regards

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript shows evaluation index system, constructed based on the Fuzzy-DEMATEL method, for the open-pit coal mines. The idea and result of the work is actual for  scientifical and practical needs.

Nevertheless, the quality of the manuscript is hard for reading and understanding because of it mixed structure. Here is the major points:

1. The purpose/goal of the manuscript is not clearly stated.

2. The logical structure of the manuscript is not relevant to Journal standart. In reviewer' point of view, it should be changed to traditional "Introduction - Materials and Methods - Resilts...".

3. Introduction chapter should give the statement about theoretical/practical problem. Now it is based on 11 highly cited sources, the content shows general ideas but don't explains authors motivation for this work.

4. The second chapter, which, obviously, should be titled as "Materials and methods" method and materials are shown without clear explanation. The research Fuzzy-Dematel method is shown without clear explanation, and only [12-16] references are given.

5. Authors shows a representative volume of theoretical and original experimental data, but it is too hard to estimate this biga volume of data. Thus, it is also hard to evaluate the key points of Conclusion chapter.

Based on this, reviewer recommends to reconsider the manuscript and to give an opportunity for major revisions for authors.

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewing teacher for their suggestions and revision suggestions.

1. The goal of this article is to construct a comprehensive evaluation index system for world-class open-pit coal mines of ZN Group, determine the scoring method, provide benchmarks and guidelines for building world-class open-pit coal mines, and improve the construction level of world-class open-pit coal mines.

2. I made changes according to your suggestions.

3. Revised the conclusion section at the end of the introduction.

4.Clear explanations and clarifications have been provided for the research methodology in Chapter 2

5. I made changes according to your suggestions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research in this article is not consistent with the journal's topic, and its innovativeness and writing do not meet the journal's standards. I recommend rejecting it for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The research in this article is not consistent with the journal's topic, and its innovativeness and writing do not meet the journal's standards. I recommend rejecting it for publication.

Author Response

I have made revisions to the paper format, English language errors, and other issues. I kindly request the reviewer to review it

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The article is well organized and all proposed remarks were incorporated. You have provided new references and made an introduction suction as a good discussion of the estate of the art in the manuscript subject.

In such a form, the paper can be published in the journal. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review. Thank you for agreeing to my whitening

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Research on Comprehensive Evaluation Indicators and Methods of World-class Open-pit Coal Mines" proposes an evaluation index system for open-pit coal mines using the Fuzzy-DEMATEL method integrated with the Analytic Hierarchy Process-Entropy method. While the article addresses an important topic and proposes an innovative methodological approach, the significant issues related to methodological complexity, subjectivity, generalizability, and practical implementation necessitate a recommendation for rejection. Addressing these concerns and resubmitting a revised manuscript with improved clarity, broader applicability, and practical guidelines could potentially enhance the article's contribution to the field of mining engineering. This study makes no sense. While the topic is relevant and the methodological approach is innovative, several critical issues necessitate a recommendation for rejection. Major concerns are as follows.

The mathematical and technical explanations of the Fuzzy-DEMATEL and AHP-Entropy methods are highly complex and not easily accessible to practitioners or readers without a specialized background.

This complexity significantly limits the article's practical utility and broader applicability. Simplified explanations or illustrative examples are necessary to make the methodology more accessible.

The reliance on expert scoring introduces a high degree of subjectivity into the evaluation process. There is insufficient use of quantitative data to balance this subjectivity.

This weakens the reliability and robustness of the evaluation results. Incorporating more objective, quantitative data would strengthen the study.

The study's findings are based on a limited number of case studies from the ZN Group, specifically the HDG and HEWS open-pit coal mines.

The limited scope of the case studies raises concerns about the generalizability of the findings to other regions or mining operations. A broader range of case studies is needed to validate the evaluation system's applicability.

The article lacks detailed guidance on how the proposed evaluation system can be practically implemented in different mining contexts.

Without practical implementation guidelines, the proposed system remains theoretical and difficult for industry professionals to apply effectively.

The discussion section does not adequately address the limitations of the study or provide clear directions for future research.

A thorough discussion of the study's limitations and suggestions for future research would enhance the article's contribution to the field and provide a roadmap for further investigation.

Additional Comments

While the literature review is comprehensive, it could benefit from a more critical analysis of existing evaluation methods to better justify the need for the proposed system.

The article's structure could be improved for better readability. Clearer headings and subheadings, along with summary sections, would help guide the reader through the complex methodologies and findings.

The inclusion of more visual aids, such as flowcharts and diagrams, would help illustrate the evaluation process and make the article more engaging.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

average. This study should be rejected. 

Author Response

1.This article provides a literature review on the mathematical and technical aspects of fuzzy DEMATEL and AHP entropy methods, with examples provided. 2. Due to the complexity of indicator selection, an analysis was first conducted based on published literature and nationally specified criteria, and finally, expert evaluations were used for selection. 3. The findings of this study are based on limited case studies of the ZN Group, particularly the HDG and HEWS open-pit coal mines. Due to differences in geological conditions, mining methods, and coal mine scale, this article selected two well-known open-pit mines for research, which has certain persuasiveness. 4. For in-depth discussions on the limitations of this study and suggestions for future research, this article has been revised based on suggestions from other teachers. 5. The title and subtitles, as well as the abstract section, have been revised based on suggestions from other teachers.