Vulnerability Assessment of Mine Flooding Disaster Induced by Rainstorm Based on Tri-AHP
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Please noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.
2. The Special noun abbreviations should be used in their full name when first time appear. e.g: IPCC,Tri-AHP
3. In the “Introduction”section，A Figure should be added to introduce the coal mine rainstorm disaster.
4. In the “Literature Review’’section, Only the conceptual connotation of vulnerability, evaluation framework and evaluation methods of subway system were introduced. The rainstorm disaster causing mechanism and evaluation method of coal mine are very different from that of subway system. Coal mine is more buried, most coal mines are built in mountainous areas, and the water supply and drainage measures are very different from those of urban subway. Supplement some relevant literature of rainstorm disaster in coal mine
5. Page 6 is P1 >P2 or P1 < P2?
6. Figure 5 should be explained in detail what the horizontal and vertical coordinates represent, and explain the Figure.
7. “In the function relationship represented in Figure X”(Page 6), where is Figure X? “It can be seen from the figure”, which figure?
8. Explain the formula 10 .What are the meanings of.Ei Wi Fi Ri respectively？
9. In this paper, the distribution map of coal mine vulnerability level in Sanmenxia City is established ，please analyze whether it is consistent with the actual disaster situation in this area.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for all your affirmation and valuable comments on this paper. All authors of this article have read your comments carefully and are inspired. We have revised the article and hope to improve it further to your satisfaction.
Please see the attachment for specific modifications.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I think the authors have done a very good study, but the manuscript has several flaws that need to be corrected. Correction of the shortcomings listed below should be done to improve the quality of the manuscript, enhance the ease of perception of the presented material and increase the interest of readers.
1) From my point of view, there are a few keywords. Keywords enable the reader to quickly search for the necessary material and enable the author to popularise their research and increase interest and citations. But if this number of keywords satisfies the requirement of the journal, this comment is advisory.
2) Some international literature should be added to the literature review.
3) Table 2: “R” should be changed to “V”.
4) Tri-AHP? Please state the full name and use an acronym in the subsequence text.
5) Figure 6: The picture is not very clear.
6) Equation (6): “others” does not need italics.
7) Table 4: “E11” shall be consistent with “E21” in format.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for all your affirmation and valuable comments on this paper. All authors of this article have read your comments carefully and are inspired. We have revised the article and hope to improve it further to your satisfaction.
Please see the attachment for specific modifications.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The scientific work is well presented and includes novel elements in terms of disaster vulnerability assessment, more precisely in the case of floods that occur at mining units and are caused by torrential rains. Congratulations to the authors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for all your affirmation on this paper.
