Human Rights and Socio-Environmental Conflicts of Mining in Mexico: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article touches very important issues that should be articulated loudly because refer not just to Mexico but state universal solutions  / way of abusing human rights when confronted to profits.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for the time and dedication invested in reviewing our manuscript. The manuscript english language was checked by a native speaking certified editor; Ms. Eleonor Occena.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The authors should ask a professional English editor to revise the manuscript.
2. There existed unnecessary indents from line 72 ~ 93. The authors should fix this mistake.
3. The authors used the PRISMA methodology to analyze the collected information in the manuscript. The authors should have a literature review about PRISMA methodology.
4. Some characters in Figure 2 cannot be displayed completely. The authors should redraw Figure 2.
5. The authors mentioned that the review literature was searched from the Scopus database (line 98) and Google Scholar (line 110). However, Figure 2 shows that the review literature was searched from Google Scholar, Scopus, and Google. There exists an inconsistent description of the review literature search. Also, the explanation related to the search languages is different; line 110 shows that “search in Google Scholar (in English and Spanish)” and lines 118 and 119 show that “language: English, Spanish 118 and Portuguese”.
6. The content of Appendix A is not very necessary for this study; it is unnecessary to use so many pages include the 162 articles in the manuscript. It had better for the authors to remove Appendix A from the manuscript.
7. The authors should have more paragraphs to explain the process flow shown in Figure 2.
8. The citation format in the manuscript looks weird, especially in line 177. The authors should depend on the literature citation regulation of the Sustainability journal to cite the literature.
9. There is no Table 2 in the manuscript.
10. The authors should depend on the content of Table 3 to assign an appropriate title for Table 3.
11. The header of Table 4 on page 10 should not appear.
12. There is no symbol '*' in Table 4; it is unnecessary to explain the '*' in Table 4's legend.
13. The authors should check the sequence of literature citations in the manuscript.
14. The appendixes occupy nearly two-thirds length of this manuscript; the authors should have more explorations in the main body of this article.

Author Response

Thank you for the time and dedication invested in reviewing our manuscrip. In attention to your observations:

1. The authors should ask an English professional editor to revise the manuscript. / A native-speaking certified editor checked the English language, Ms. Eleonor Occena.
2. There existed unnecessary indents from lines 72 ~ 93. The authors should fix this mistake. / Thanks, the indents were corrected.
3. The authors used the PRISMA methodology to analyze the collected information in the manuscript. The authors should have a literature review about PRISMA methodology. / Thanks for the observation. We consider the publications of Moher and collaborators,"Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement"; Pale and Moher already published "An updated review about the PRISMA Statement, along with a toolkit of strategies to help journals endorse and implement the updated guideline"; So, we incorporated those references. Also, we included a discussion about O'Leary and collaborators, criteria in their publication "Beyond PRISMA: Systematic reviews to inform marine science and policy".
4. Some characters in Figure 2 cannot be displayed completely. The authors should redraw Figure 2. / Thanks for the suggestion. It was corrected and redrew.
5. The authors mentioned that the review literature was searched from the Scopus database (line 98) and Google Scholar (line 110). However, Figure 2 shows that the review literature was searched from Google Scholar, Scopus, and Google. There exists an inconsistent description of the review literature search. Also, the explanation related to the search languages is different; line 110 shows that "search in Google Scholar (in English and Spanish)" and lines 118 and 119 show that "language: English, Spanish 118 and Portuguese". / Thank you. It was not clear about the Google source. So, we included the following sentence "But other information sources were included, such as SEC in Mexico paper news consulted from journals and other media websites by the Google search engine".
6. The content of Appendix A is not very necessary for this study; it is unnecessary to use so many pages include the 162 articles in the manuscript. It had better for the authors to remove Appendix A from the manuscript. / Thank you. We removed this part from the manuscript, and hence, Appendix B and C were renamed.
7. The authors should have more paragraphs to explain the process flow shown in Figure 2. / Thank you for the suggestion que included the next paragraphs:

"The inclusion criteria. It started with the searching keywords (the mining conflicts and their effects in the environment; HR and its relationship with the environment; mining conflicts in Mexico and all regions) in all sources (articles, books, chapters of books, and websites). The languages were English, Spanish, and Portuguese. The rough database (not clean) compiled 5,704 documents".

"The exclusion criteria. Artifacts or undesired documents about work incidents and administrative issues in mining; concepts "marine mining"; and "data mining"; and information about the mining processing were removed. Following the methodology criteria, the final clean database was analyzed. It compiled 110 documents".
"Paper News and Media. Mexican mining SEC Data (66 records) can be consulted at:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wJdluTYrYUhJ7ieI2AA5FB9abiVRFtTY 

8. The citation format in the manuscript looks weird, especially in line 177. The authors should depend on the literature citation regulation of the Sustainability journal to cite the literature. / We corrected the citation format. Thank you for the observation.

9. There is no Table 2 in the manuscript. / Thank you and sorry for this unintentional omission. Table 2 was included.

10. The authors should depend on the content of Table 3 to assign an appropriate title for Table 3. / Sorry for this lousy translation. The table title name is "Table 3. Pros and cons of the mining industry in Mexico".

11. The header of Table 4 on page 10 should not appear. / Now it is fixed. Thank you.

12. There is no symbol (*) in Table 4; it is unnecessary to explain the (*) in Table 4's legend. / The legend was removed, and paper news and media information is added in the following link:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wJdluTYrYUhJ7ieI2AA5FB9abiVRFtTY

13. The authors should check the sequence of literature citations in the manuscript. / Thank you. We corrected the sequence of literature.

14. The appendixes occupy the nearly two-thirds length of this manuscript; the authors should have more explorations in the main body of this article. / We appreciate the observation. The original Appendix A was removed from the manuscript, and we included new references.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

1. (English, Spanish and Portuguese) in line 121 should be (English, Spanish, and Portuguese).
2. The 2nd column and the 3rd column in Appendix B are too close. The author should enlarge the space between those two columns.
3. The citation format in line 195 looks weird. The authors should depend on the literature citation regulation of the Sustainability journal to cite the literature.
4. The authors should check the sequence of literature citations in the manuscript again. The [42] appears before the [41] in the manuscript.

Author Response

Good afternoon.

In attention to your observations we should say that we have done all corrections suggested. All answers about were included in the system:

Round 1 (Reviewer II):

1. The authors should ask a professional English editor to revise the manuscript.

The manuscript English language was checked by a native speaking certified editor; Ms. Eleonor Occena.

2. There existed unnecessary indents from line 72 ~ 93. The authors should fix this mistake.

Thanks, the indents were corrected.

3. The authors used the PRISMA methodology to analyze the collected information in the manuscript. The authors should have a literature review about PRISMA methodology.

Thanks for the observation, we consider the publications of Moher and collaborators, “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement”; Pale and Moher already published “An updated review about the PRISMA Statement, along with a toolkit of strategies to help journals endorse and implement the updated guideline”.  So, we included those references. Also, we included a discussion about O’Leary and collaborators criteria, too in their publication “Beyond PRISMA: Systematic reviews to inform marine science and policy”

4. Some characters in Figure 2 cannot be displayed completely. The authors should redraw Figure 2.

Thanks for the suggestion, it was corrected. We redrew it.

5. The authors mentioned that the review literature was searched from the Scopus database (line 98) and Google Scholar (line 110). However, Figure 2 shows that the review literature was searched from Google Scholar, Scopus, and Google. There exists an inconsistent description of the review literature search. Also, the explanation related to the search languages is different; line 110 shows that “search in Google Scholar (in English and Spanish)” and lines 118 and 119 show that “language: English, Spanish 118 and Portuguese”.

Thank you. It was not clear about the Google source. So, we included the following sentence “But other information sources were included, such as SEC in Mexico paper news consulted from journals and other media websites by the Google search engine”.

6. The content of Appendix A is not very necessary for this study; it is unnecessary to use so many pages include the 162 articles in the manuscript. It had better for the authors to remove Appendix A from the manuscript.

Thank you. This part was removed from the manuscript and Appendix B & C were renamed.

7. The authors should have more paragraphs to explain the process flow shown in Figure 2.

The inclusion criteria. It started with the searching key words (the mining conflicts and its effects in the environment; HR and its relationship with the environment; mining conflicts in Mexico and all regions) in all sources (articles, books, chapter of books and websites). The languages were English, Spanish, and Portuguese. The rough database (not clean) compiled 5,704 documents.

The exclusion criteria. Artifacts or undesired documents about work incidents and administrative issues in mining; concepts “marine mining” and “data mining” and information about the mining processing were removed. Following the methodology criteria, the final clean database was analyzed. It compiled 110 documents.

Paper News and Media. Mexican mining SEC Data (66 records) can be consulted at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wJdluTYrYUhJ7ieI2AA5FB9abiVRFtTY

 

8. The citation format in the manuscript looks weird, especially in line 177. The authors should depend on the literature citation regulation of the Sustainability journal to cite the literature.

We corrected the format of citation. Thank you for the observation.

9. There is no Table 2 in the manuscript.

Thank you and sorry for this unintentional omission. Table 2 was included.

10. The authors should depend on the content of Table 3 to assign an appropriate title for Table 3.

Sorry for this bad translation. The table title name is “Table 3. Pros and cons of mining industry in Mexico.”

11. The header of Table 4 on page 10 should not appear.

Now it is fixed. Thank you.

12. There is no symbol '*' in Table 4; it is unnecessary to explain the '*' in Table 4's legend.

The legend was removed and paper news and media information is added in the next link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wJdluTYrYUhJ7ieI2AA5FB9abiVRFtTY

13. The authors should check the sequence of literature citations in the manuscript.

Thank you. We corrected de sequence of literature.

14. The appendixes occupy nearly two-thirds length of this manuscript; the authors should have more explorations in the main body of this article.

We appreciate the observation. The original Appendix A was removed of the manuscript, and we included new references.

Round 2 (Reviewer II)

1. (English, Spanish and Portuguese) in line 121 should be (English, Spanish, and Portuguese).

Thanks for the observation. We corrected this mistake.

1. The 2nd column and the 3rd column in Appendix B are too close. The author should enlarge the space between those two columns.

Thank you. The space in both columns were adjusted.

2. The citation format in line 195 looks weird. The authors should depend on the literature citation regulation of the Sustainability journal to cite the literature.

Thank you. We substituted the quote by the following sentence:

“Paz et al. consider that lack of environmental regulations causes affectations, too [32]”.

3. The authors should check the sequence of literature citations in the manuscript again. The [42] appears before the [41] in the manuscript.

Thank you for this observation. We corrected the sequence of literature, and we added the following sentece to ease its identification:

“In the study published by Ramirez, shows that 30% of all kinds of SEC in Mexico (among 1990-2015) has an undetermined resolution, or it is unknown if it is still going on [41]”.

Also, the native-speaking English Ms. Eleanor Occena reviewed the manuscript language again.

We upload the corrected manuscript (the clean second version with new tracking changes) to the system.

We appreciate gratefully your help for the manuscript improving.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The 2nd column and the 3rd column in Appendix B are too close. The author should enlarge the space between those two columns.

Author Response

Thanks for the observation. The 2^nd and 3^rd column were readjusted again using the auto adjust tool of Word. In addition, we turn in bold the words “Water” and “Healthy environment” in 1^st column.