Geological Resource Planning and Environmental Impact Assessments Based on GIS
, Mohammed A. AlZain 6 and Mehedi Masud 7,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article discusses geological resources planning and environmental impact assessment based on GIS. It is well written but need some minor revisions to improve the quality of paper.
- Abstract need to be written and highlight the novelty of the work.
- The main objective of the work must be written on the more clear and more concise way at the end of introduction section.
- English language should be carefully checked and carefully check paper for language typos.
- I suggest author to give more focus to the findings.
Author Response
The authors greatly appreciate the valuable and insightful comments made by the reviewers and would like to thank them for their efforts. Their comments have undoubtedly helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all the comments and the manuscript have been revised thoroughly to meet their expectations. Our point-by-point responses to each comment are attached in the enclosed file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research topic is interesting and important for understanding Geological Resources Planning and environmental assessment. My concerns are the major fundamental motivations, contributions and problem statements of this investigation. That is, what is research hypothesis? What is the research question? And, what is the gap in literature, and why the paper is worthy of publishing?
At present manuscript is like a general report rather than a scientific article.
In this aspect, there are still some important issues needed to be further addressed before manuscript can be published.
- A) Manuscript format
Comment 1-
At the present, manuscript format is not clear, in particular “ material and methods”, “Results” and “Discussion”. I would therefore suggest that author reformat their manuscript according to the Sustainability guide for authors. More importantly, please explain clearly and separately methods, results and discussion.
- B) Introduction
Comment 2- 2Research hypothesis
The paper does not clarify what is the rational for this research in many aspects. Particularly, the link between objectives and geological resource planning is not very clear. I would suggest describing succinctly introduction section.
Comment 2, Motivation
Paper states a brief background on geological resources planning and environmental impact assessment. However, it is not very clear why the paper put forward to conduct this research. Please explain motivation(s) of this research.
Comment 3-1 , objective
The objective of the paper is not highlighted very well in which whether the paper aims on assessment, policy investigations, and mapping. Please demonstrate clearly the research objectives
Comment 3-2, Gap of literature
As aforementioned, if the paper focuses on geological assessment, the paper should present relevant literature review rather than general overview.
- C) Study area, Data and Method
Comment 4-1, contribution
In nutshell, the paper did not describe comprehensively developed framework (e.g., spatial analysis, GIS analysis). Moreover, the data and study area sections are not presented. Hence, it would be interesting if the authors clearly highlight these sections.
- D) Results and discussion
It is really hard to understand the achievement of the paper. I would suggest that authors re-write comprehensively and systematically results and discussion.
Author Response
The authors greatly appreciate the valuable and insightful comments made by the reviewers and would like to thank them for their efforts. Their comments have undoubtedly helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all the comments and the manuscript have been revised thoroughly to meet their expectations. Our point-by-point responses to each comment are attached in the enclosed file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The abstract of this paper should be modified in order to explain what the "plan" is. Also words like Results: Methods: should be ommited and changed in form like Results of the paper are... or Methods used in this paper are....
Numbers that represent areas of different land use are hard to follow. They should be replaced with percentage so that reader can easily get the context. Also it should be done in the whole paper, real areas can be put in a table.
While definition of GIS is extended the definition of the term Geological Resource Planning is missing.
Paper is generally too short. Detailed explanation of the methods are missing
Author Response
The authors greatly appreciate the valuable and insightful comments made by the reviewers and would like to thank them for their efforts. Their comments have undoubtedly helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all the comments and the manuscript have been revised thoroughly to meet their expectations. Our point-by-point responses to each comment are attached in the enclosed file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper presents the use of GIS technologies in spatial planning. After a relevant introduction, we are presented with a review of the literature and working methodology. All three subchapters are done correctly, but are a work of documentation and not research. In terms of results and conclusions, they do not support the idea of ​​publishing such an impact in a research journal. There are ubiquitous conclusions in the literature, without bringing anything new, neither in terms of results nor in terms of research methodology. In addition, I do not consider that the chosen theme and especially its approach are corresponding to the issues related to sustainability.Author Response
The authors greatly appreciate the valuable and insightful comments made by the reviewers and would like to thank them for their efforts. Their comments have undoubtedly helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all the comments and the manuscript have been revised thoroughly to meet their expectations. Our point-by-point responses to each comment are attached in the enclosed file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
I do appreciate your efforts for improving the quality and quantity of the paper. However, there are major flaws in "data and method" and "Discussion" sections.
- The source of data, type of data, etc is not very clear.
- The methodology section does not provide any information how authors have analyzed data.
- The discussion does not support results section. In addition, there are many "depicts" and unnecessary information.
Bearing in mind:
In terms of data and method, it is one of the principles of science that a paper should contain sufficient detail to allow the work to be repeated by someone else (Ashly, 2005).
Moreover, the function of the discussion is to describe the ideas, models and theories and lead the reader through a comparison of these with the experimental or computational data. Bring out the most significant conclusions first; develop subsidiary conclusions after that(Ashly, 2005).
Ashly, M. 2005. How to Write a Paper.Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, Cambridge 6rd Edition, April 2005
I do hope authors consider those comments seriously.
Author Response
The authors greatly appreciate the valuable and insightful comments made by the reviewers and would like to thank them for their efforts. Their comments have undoubtedly helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all the comments and the manuscript have been revised thoroughly to meet their expectations. Our point-by-point responses to each comment are attached below:
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors responed to all comments and paper looks better now.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors considered the suggestions submitted and improved the paper in a suitable format for publication.Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments.
