Development of a Weighting Procedure for Geomechanical Risk Assessment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See the commented pdf file attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor;
The comments raised by the respected reviewers were implemented as below. The paper was revised as instructed and edited thoroughly. The changes are in the right column. Some figures were reproduced with high resolution and technical discussions were added to the paper. I hope the paper now satisfies the journal standards.
Reviewer 2 Report
General/Technical Comments:
1. The paper text needs editing and correction.
2. Is the data provided in table 1 for intact rock or rock mass? Please clarify. Also indicate the type of opening (stope, access drift, shaft, orepass, etc..) in the stability category column.
3. In section 3, it is stated that “… it is reasonable to weigh the key geomechanical design parameters based on and with the direct participation of local experts…”. Please explain this issue more in detail. How did you conduct this task for your work?
4. In section 3.2.4. you selected the triangular membership function in the fuzzy analysis. How would the results change if you use more sophisticated membership functions? Please justify the use of the triangular function.
5. Summarize the proposed mythology in the form of a simple flowchart at the end of section 3.
Author Response
Dear Editor;
The comments raised by the respected reviewers were implemented as below. The paper was revised as instructed and edited thoroughly. The changes are in the right column. Some figures were reproduced with high resolution and technical discussions were added to the paper. I hope the paper now satisfies the journal standards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The following notes should be addressed by the authors before accepting for publication in Energies journal.
1. First of all, the paper needs an extensive language check by native speakers.
2. This article is derived from Master thesis by the second author at Nazarbayev University, you should cite the thesis.
3. Pls define any acronym at the first mention throughout the manuscript.
4. Literature should be improved. Citations to the following articles in proper place are highly recommended.
doi: 10.1007/s10706-020-01571-4
doi: 10.1007/s12145-021-00580-y
5. In Introduction section, pls add a historical review in the Introduction section describing the different methodology of the weighting criteria around the world, supported by recent references
6. The geology and structural setting descriptions of the study area are very shallow and not enough. I think the authors must describe the geology and structural settings (emphasizing the discontinuities distributions) of your area under separate section titled "the Study Area" , supported with geological map and column stratigraphic sequence of the lithologic units (Coded as in Table 1)
7. The Geomechanical domains mentioned in Table 2 should be defined and mapped.
8. In the proposed weighting procedure section, it is better to insert a flow chart describing and summarizing the weighting procedure applied in this article..
9. Several notes are set on the annotated pdf file. Please consider it in your revision.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor;
The comments raised by the respected reviewers were implemented as below. The paper was revised as instructed and edited thoroughly. The changes are in the right column. Some figures were reproduced with high resolution and technical discussions were added to the paper. I hope the paper now satisfies the journal standards.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
