Application of Cascade Forward Backpropagation Neural Networks for Selecting Mining Methods

Reviewers’ comments

Authors’ rebuttal

Introduction

1-Introduction part is very well, I can see you did a lot of work, and made a lot of literature review, but I suggest you can try to make a comparison between some methods and yours. I’ll give you an example, compare the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with your method, to highlight the advantages of your method. Of course, this is just a suggestion.

2-Well written in the middle and clearly reflected in the results, it was a good study. But I would suggest that you do a separate discussion section instead of putting the discussion and the results section together. If they are put together, it seems to me that there is no discussion section in the article, so I suggest you write a separate discussion section.

Thank you once again, your suggestion has been taken into consideration. We have separated the discussion section. Kindly, find the section in p (13) lines 337-355    

3-The images in the text are of low resolution, it must be resolved.

well, we have modified all figures to be make clear with good resolution.

4-Please provide several drawings of the optimal mining method, so readers can understand the actual situation more clearly.

well, thank you for this valuable comment. We have more drawings of the optimal mining methods. would you please have a look at figure No. 5.

5-The conclusion is a little short, I think, but not bad, and I suggest you order your conclusion in order, for example (1), (2), (3).

We have reorganized the conclusion accordingly in order, please considered P (14) lines 356-370

In short, this is a high-quality paper, and I hope you can make some improvements to make it more perfect.

We appreciate your effort done t make our paper readable and valuable. thank you indeed    

Reviewers’ comments

Authors’ rebuttal

Introduction

1- Introduction: There is a lot of background material in the introduction. However, there is no goal, aim or objective stated. What is used is underlined though. And there is a “focus” which is stated in the methodology section.

The authors need to state what the objective, goal or aim of the paper is in the introduction. Potentially, they could also lighten the introduction too by moving much of the background material into a separate section “background”.

The introduction has been modified and rewritten to show the goal and aims of our paper in the end.

2- Methodology: The statement “…poor parameters of the UBC approach were dispensed with…”. What are these parameters? What defines “poor”.

The authors need to provide a summary of the UBC approach and then define what “poor” is.

The parameters of the UBC have been defined well in the methodology according to the references. We are avoiding the use of poor parameters (minus umber in UBC method) to be uses in easy way.

3- Miller & Tate found in the reference list. Miller & Tate is cited by name in the paper 3 times in the text. However, the citing should be accompanied with the reference number [26].

The citation of Miller and Tate has been accompanied with the reference No. 4

4- Nicholas is cited by name 7 times in the paper. However, Nicholas is not found in the reference list. This needs to be corrected.

That reference has been added, please give a look to the reference list No.5,6.

Reviewers’ comments

Authors’ rebuttal

1-I have reviewed the paper titled Application of Cascade Forward Back-propagation Neural Networks for Selecting Mining Methods. The paper is poorly written, and, in many cases, the abbreviations are just presented without first mentioning their full meanings. For example, TOPSIS, AHP, FAHP, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, ELECTRE, and VIKOR.

Thank you. We have taken this comment in high consideration. We have modified the paper where we added a comparison between our methods and other methods, we also separated the discussion section. In addition to, we inserted more drawings of the optimal mining methods. now the paper is much clearer than the first revision. Please find the modification in lines (126-127) and in figure 5. Moreover, the abbreviations have been described accordingly.

Abbreviations were added. (Line 37-42)

2- The introduction is incoherent and important articles on various applications of ANN in mining engineering field is missing (https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2019.1662186; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2021.01.007).

We cannot agree with these comments. We have boosted the introduction with more references according to the reviewer’s suggestion. Please find them in the reference list No.26,27.

3-In fact the excel model is implicit and vague. Very difficult to understand.

The excel sheet is considered the real roots that cascade forwarded back propagation neural network is based on. Thus, the excel sheet is very essential and important to the confirm the solution and results.

4-The authors must go back and present their paper very clearly. The current form of the paper is inappropriate and unacceptable.

We have revised the paper completely. We suppose that the new version is consistent well with the readers hopes

Reviewers’ comments

Authors’ rebuttal

1. Abstract: re-written.

- At the beginning of the abstract, there is an introduction to the necessity of doing the work, then the purpose of the work, an introduction to the methods studied, and finally the results and suggestions.

Keywords: Please add TOPSIS

This abstract demonstrate the state of art, methodology, and conclusion with a smoothy follow.

Thank you, we have added this word.

2- Introduction:

Introduction to be rewritten in three separate paragraphs for reasons of review, literature review and research purposes.

The structure of the paper should be rewritten in 3 separate paragraphs. In the first paragraph, information about the subject under study, in the second paragraph, the study of different researchers and the studied indicators, and in the third paragraph, the objectives of the research should be stated.

1)    You can add the following below references:  Rezaei, A., Hassani, H., Moarefvand, P., Golmohammadi, A., Jabbari, N., 2019. Grade 3D Block Modeling and Reserve Estimation of the C-North Iron Skarn Ore Deposit, Sangan, NE Iran. Global Journal of Earth Science and Engineering. 6(1): 23-27. Avanti Publishers.

2)    Hayati, M., Tavakoli Mohammadi, M.R., Rezaei, A., Shayestehfar, M.R., 2015. Risk Assessment and Ranking of Metals Using FDAHP and TOPSIS. Mine Water and the Environment, 33(2): 157-164.

We have divided the structure of the introduction into three separatable. We have divided the structure of the introduction into three separatable paragraphs. Please, have a look at P (1-3).

Thank you, we have supported our paper with the reviewer’s suggested references. Please find them in reference list No.11,12.

Thank you once again.

3-Figure 1: Change the title of the figure. Image quality (resolution) is low. Please show the geographic location of the study area. Describe in any form a, and b.

well, we have changed it to be clearer and we adjusted the file accordingly.

4-Figure 2: Image quality (resolution) is low. Please modify it.

it has been modified with high resolution

5-Figure 3: Image quality (resolution) is low. Please modify it.

it has been modified with high resolution

6. Conclusion: The conclusion must review again. Describe clearly the results.

it has been revised a gain please have a look at P  (14) lines 356-370.

7-Changing the plunge to what extent can be effective in choosing the mining method!? Describe with more details.

First of all, the plunge means the dip (horizonal, gently dip around 5°-15°, dip >< 25°, deeply 60°-90°) varying property is strongly affected by mining methods selection, in another words, the longwall mining method requires horizonal or gently dip but the cut and fill stoping mining method is preferring the deep.  

8-One of the important factors in exploitation process is the existence of geological structures such as faults and fractures. What arrangements have been made in the proposed model?

The geological structure already has been considered through two (1) RQD, Rock quality designation and (2) RSS (Rock substance strength). 

Reviewers’ comments

Authors’ rebuttal

1-    Please check the grammar in lines 60 and 61.

“The scoring area of the Nicholas approach this is among the maximum and minimum was turned into extended”

The grammar was checked.

The scoring area of the Nicholas approach is among the maximum and minimum was turned into extended.

2- Line 112 and Line 114, I think "Abiodun" should be replaced with "Lawal" to be compatible with names on the reference list.

“Abiodun” was replaced with “Lawal”

Lawal and Musa applied an artificial neural network (ANN) based mathematical model for the prediction of blast-induced ground vibrations [26]. Lawal et al. (2021) focused on using sine cosine algorithm optimized artificial neural network (SCA-ANN) models for predicting the blast-initiated ground vibration in five granite quarries [27]. Lines 112-114.

3-Lines 200 and 201, the content in the bracket seems inappropriate.

The parameters of the UBC have been defined well in the methodology according to the references. We are avoiding the use of poor parameters (minus number which considered as weight criteria in UBC method) to be uses in easy way.

4-In Table 3, the word 'Sami' is severally used which is incorrect. It should be 'Semi' instead. Sami seems to have no meaning.

Thank you for this thorough review. The word” Sami” was replaced with “semi”

5- Line 294, Table 10 should not be referenced before Table 5 and it is even presented far away from where it is first mentioned.

We are appreciating this important note. The equation was illustrated in the methodology section, and all solutions stages will present in table 10.