Integrating Microseismic Monitoring for Predicting Water Inrush Hazards in Coal Mines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewer’s comments is the following paragraph:

In this study, the author investigates the relationship between micro-seismic monitoring date and water inflow. This research is greatly beneficial to mine safety, particularly in mines where water inrush are frequent. However, several issues necessitate minor revisions.

1. Some of the argumentative processes in the text should be more rigorous. For example, Line 277 states, “Correlation between micro-seismic monitoring data and water inflow in the working face”, in addition to taking into account the factors mentioned in the text, is it possible that other conditions may also lead to changes of water inflow. It is recommended that these sections be reviewed and restructured for better rigour and clarity.

2. The abstract of the thesis prestents too little background to the study. It should provide a brief description of the background and significance of the dissertation research to illustrate the value of the research.

3. The figure in the text is not standardised. Specifically, the labelling of the units in figures 4 and 10 is not uniform and is partly in slashes and partly in brackets, leading to confusion.

4. The formatting of table names and the tables themselves is inconsistent. Some table name are bolded, while others are not. Uniform formatting should be applied throughout the document for consistency.

5. The conclusions need to be further summarised and condensed. The results should be integrated with the theme and the research findings should be summarised, thus making the conclusions more concise.

6. The number of references cited in the study is insufficient. It is advisable to include more references to water inflow prediction and micro-seismic monitoring, thereby reinforcing the argument that Implications of combining water inflow prediction with micro-seismic data.

These suggestions aim to enhance the clarity, coherence, and scholarly rigour of the paper.

The paper is relatively smooth in English and Chinese, with accurate wording, and does not need much adjustment overall. However, some sentences are too long and should be re-expressed to make the expression more concise and clear.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Well researched and presented manuscript. Wish the authors all the best.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please, find some comments attached below.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English must be improved and corrected by a native speaker.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I consider that the paper can be published after minor revisions.

Minor language editing are necessary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf