Four Decades of Efforts to Reduce or Eliminate Mercury Pollution in Artisanal Gold Mining

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Given the nature of this paper, which is a "comment" rather than a research article, I find that the authors should be given wide latitude to express their perspectives (indeed, this type of paper is often not peer reviewed). Because the first author is an eminent scholar in this field, this type of retrospective commentary is worthwhile to publish. There are few areas where I feel suggestions would be appropriate, given the comment format. However, a few suggestions are worth mentioning:

1. The abstract should be completely rewritten. Even for a 'comment,' the abstract is far to informal and does not follow the standards or expectations for a scientific journal.
2. The paper is broadly written from the perspective of the first author, in many places using the first person "I", which makes it unclear what the second and third authors' contributions are or whether the opinions and reflections presented are of the group or only the first author. Clarifications would be helpful, in addition to adding a CREDIT author statement or similar identification of roles.
3. Copy editing and proofreading could improve the language and style throughout.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Copy editing and proofreading could improve the language and style throughout.

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. In fact I have never seen a Commentary being reviewed or to have Abstracts and Figures but, the journal insisted to have the same article structure. The informality of the Abstract was to express our viewpoint, but we changed to be more professional . This was originally a short commentary but my two current students reminded me some points related to the work we have been done in Nigeria and Brazil. I appreciate the comments from the reviewer and I would follow the suggestions. It seems more straightforward now. The Abstract is re-written.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Mercury reduction in ASM/AGM/ASGM is an important topic and the author has tremendous experience in this field. However, as stated by the author, this is not a scientific paper but rather an opinion paper. Statements are mostly opinion driven and one-sided. Thus, a review based on scientific standards is not possible.

 

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. In fact I have never seen a commentary publication with reviewers, Figures and more than one author, but I followed the instructions of the journal editor. I added the opinions of my two current students as we have discussed the issues herein mentioned in many field trips and I though it was fair to include their names. Thanks for the review and comments.