Dynamic Risk Assessment of High Slope in Open-Pit Coalmines Based on Interval Trapezoidal Fuzzy Soft Set Method: A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Line 66-67: Here, mention how the weights of time points and slope risk factors were obtained and how your integrated them.
2. Line 72: Please state "Three time points" that were selected.
3. Line 72: How the parameter values of 17 secondary indicators were obtained? Please state the method of obtaining values.
4. Section 3 and Section 4 may be merged. I highly recommend adding a methodological flowchart (Figure 1) in the beginning and adding details to each step so that fellow researchers can understand and apply the proposed method.
5. Please mention where you performed operations. Did you develop the model in MS Excel/MATLAB or any source?
6. Since you are proposing a new method combining the dynamic interval trapezoidal fuzzy soft set method and FAHP, I suggest you to please provide the Coding in Excel or any software you used during the second review of the article. It will allow me to see your model in depth. If you provide for general readers, your model may be used in future studies.
7. There is a lack of literature review on the dynamic interval trapezoidal fuzzy soft set method and FAHP.
8. Line 131: I read 130 lines but still could not understand how the weights of different time points were determined. Which main factors and secondary were determined using the dynamic interval trapezoidal fuzzy soft set method, and which were determined using FAHP?
9. Did you calculate the weights of all indicators using both techniques?
10. Please state about: Equation (17): What do B1, B2, B3, and B4 show? Equation 18: Please tell the readers what are e11 - e14. Although it is described later that B1-B4 are main indicators and e11-e44 are sub-indicators, the equation must be explained as per the standards of writing equations in the research article.
11. How did you collect the data? Please provide the questionnaire / tool you used to collect data. Mention data sources and the number of experts.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciated all of your constructive comments and suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript to address all the comments and suggestions. Please see the attachment. Hopefully the revised version of the manuscript is now acceptable for publication. If there are more changes needed, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
Thank you for your help and I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have written an interesting paper, presenting a relatively novel MCDM approach in a new environment, suggesting the use of the fuzzy AHP method based on the trapezoidal fuzzy soft sets for the purpose of dynamic risk assessment at the open pit coal mine. Therefore, the text is relevant for the fields of novel MCDM approaches and, in particular, the use in the area of mining engineering.
The text is clearly written, easily understood. The main points are presented correctly, without unnecessary information. Sufficient details were provided regarding the methodology. Likewise, the appropriate case study was used to showcase a method. The conclusions are consistent with the presented case study and its results. The provided references are relevant and contemporary.
The appendix provided (Appendix A) is necessary, as it presents different risk evaluation values at different times. It is, however, uncertain, if the numbering should remain as is since the main text body contains only 5 tables and the remaining 23 are given in in the appendix.
The paper would benefit from a stronger introduction section. The reference provided are adequate in number and substance. However, the introduction is relatively short, and it is not mentioning/addressing the previously used methods for dynamic risk assessment of slopes at open pit mines, even if there are only a few examples.
There are only a few suggestions and comments (please see the attached pdf file for details). A few stand out: it seems that reference no. 1 (page 1, line 32) is not related to the landslides or the disaster types at coal mines, secondly, a reference is needed for complex conditions and multiple risk factors (page 1, line 35), further (page 2, line 60), the first sentence should be rephrased and a confusion with the text placement (page 7, line 234).
Apart from these, there are only minor suggestions and comments mostly related to language and typos.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciated all of your constructive comments and suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript to address all the comments and suggestions. Please see the attachment. Hopefully the revised version of the manuscript is now acceptable for publication. If there are more changes needed, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
Thank you for your help and I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I found all revisions satisfactory.
