Study on the Prediction Model of Coal Spontaneous Combustion Limit Parameters and Its Application
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The comments are included in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our manuscript. Please refer to the attachment for specific modifications.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article focuses on developing a predictive model for the spontaneous combustion limit parameters of coal in mining contexts. The authors demonstrate that their GA-SVM model outperforms other models, potentially improving coal spontaneous combustion prevention efforts.
The article is interesting, and the conducted research is substantiated. The visual presentation is well-executed. The research results are presented clearly. Microscopic images are accurately selected. Nevertheless, certain revisions are necessary before the article can be published:
1.
Lines 16-19 require sentence revisions as they sound too similar and need to be made more interesting.
2.
It would be beneficial to reduce the font size for column headings, figure captions (e.g., Fig. 1, captions a, b, and c) in tables and figures. Similarly, the font size of mathematical formulas could also be reduced.
3.
The tables should have the same number of decimal places in the presented results. In Table 1 and 2, there is a lack of uniformity in this regard.
4.
Throughout the paper, there is a lack of space before square brackets when citing literature references (e.g. lines 71, 72, 149).
5.
Conclusion - there is a need for an introductory sentence briefly summarizing the work before listing the main conclusions.
6.
When describing the bibliographic data of the cited literature, there is a lack of DOI numbers.
Author Response
We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our manuscript. Please refer to the attachment for specific modifications.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No comments or suggestions for Authors.
