Research on Spatiotemporal Heterogeneity of the Impact of Earthquakes on Global Copper Ore Supply Based on Geographically Weighted Regression

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very good, it deals with an important topic and brings innovative content to the scientific debate.

However, some caveats exist that can be resolved without much effort before publication.

The first is the abstract. It should contain precisely what the research result is and what its real-world implications are. Who gains what from their results?

The second is to avoid lumped references. As a rule, authors should use one falsifiable statement, one and only one reference. This way the audience can triangulate their findings.

The third regards the text.

In the introduction, authors must explicitly state (the purpose of this article is ...) the purpose of the article as well as the research method.

From session 2 onwards, the content should be better organized and distributed into chapters.

I suggest:

2. Research Methodogy

2.1 Methods (without sub-subtitles)

2.2 Data

3. Results

3.1Correlation analysis (without sub-subtitles)

3.2 Time scale impact: Chile and Peru (without sub-subtitles)

4. Discussion and implications

5. Final remarks

Equations must be called by the number in the text (avoid calling them formula, use equation)

The quality of some figures is poor and must be improved.

The last sections must be improved and enhanced including further research opportunities.

 

Issues different from earthquakes (covid, strikes) are strange to the core line of the study and must be removed. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates an interesting topic such as the research on heterogeneity of the impact of earthquakes on global copper by applying the methodology of weighted regression. The methodology is pertinent and English is also fine. However, some issues need to be considered.

Introduction 

The novelties of the paper against the existing literature need to be clearly defined. 

The authors wrote that in accordance to relevant reports, without citing them. Please expand this point by referring to the due literature. 

The authors considered the possible consequences of earthquakes without discussing the important concept of resilience that is multidisciplinary and very common in research nowadays. Please see the attached file.

Section 2.1

Is this section novel? Please discuss. If it is not, reduce it.

Section 3

The authors wrote: "since earthquakes (...) range of earthquakes". This sentence needs to be extended and referred accordingly.

Lines 224-226: the due citation is needed.

Lines 258-260: what an earthquake prone area is defined?

Figure 4-6 is difficult to be read. 

The role of Covid is not necessary to be included in the paper. It can only be mentioned. 

Conclusions 

Limitations, possible applications and future work are necessary to be added

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Ok, can be accepted 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is ready for acceptance.