Study on the Evaluation of the Development Efficiency of Smart Mine Construction and the Influencing Factors Based on the US-SBM Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I have reviewed your manuscript. Please find my suggestions and comments in the attached file.
Regards.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We highly appreciate your comments on the manuscript. With great care, we reviewed the comments and suggestions and have incorporated major revisions into the manuscript. Hopefully, the revised version could satisfy you. Listed below are our point-by-point responses to your comments.
Please see the appendix for specific responses
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear sir/ma'am
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Study on the evaluation of the development efficiency of smart mine construction and the influencing factors" to Sustainability Journal, MDPI. It is a valuable article and it needs a little improvement. I encourage you to write next article.
No particular mistakes or errors, But:
Comment:
1. Please re-write the title ‘Use US-SBM model in the title’.
2. What are the reason for choosing US-SBM and KDE models?
3. Please compare the advantages of this model over other models in an independent table?
4. Undoubtedly, the needs of the consumer market play an essential role in the choice of technology and it is very effective to check the parameters of precision instruments and technology. How do you analyze the items on the test in this model based on data envelopment analysis (DEA), please more explain?
5. Have you checked the effect of the processing of low-grade minerals on the relevant mechanism? Please explain in more detail?
We are looking forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Best Regards,
Reviewing Team
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We highly appreciate your comments on the manuscript. With great care, we reviewed the comments and suggestions and have incorporated major revisions into the manuscript. Hopefully, the revised version could satisfy you. Listed below are our point-by-point responses to your comments.
Please see the appendix for specific responses
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This article has fully studied the evaluation index system of intelligent mine construction and development efficiency, and although a lot of work has been done, there are still many unclear places in terms of written expression and research ideas. Therefore, major revisions are needed to realize the true value of research results. The following issues also need to be improved:
(1) The preamble of the article is more redundant, it is best to integrate the first 3 paragraphs into two paragraphs, and the second and fourth paragraphs are almost all research results, is it too much? Could some be deleted and representative results retained.
(2) The formula format needs to be consistent, why is Equation 4 different from other formula formats? There are also differences in the symbols of Equation 2, please unify the format.
(3)The contents of the Input elements and Output elements in Table 1 are not easily distinguished, and whether they can be distinguished by color or other means.
(4) The pictures of the paper are required to be beautiful, and the quality of the two figures in this paper needs to be improved (as shown in Figure 1), which can be modified.
(5) There are also some problems with the format of this article, such as 21 lines of The is not lowercase, it is recommended to carefully check the full text to ensure the accuracy of the format of this article
(6) In 2.1 Research methods section and some of the more important content, can you add some pictures to help readers better understand.
(7) Some of the content in the text is too colloquial, and there is a phenomenon of repeated expression, so the whole text should be carefully checked and the expression standardized.
(8) The international literature used in this paper is too small to be appropriately increased.
(9) What is the case of a repetition in section 3.1? This kind of error should not happen.
(10) The conclusion is duplicative of the abstract and needs to be avoided.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We highly appreciate your comments on the manuscript. With great care, we reviewed the comments and suggestions and have incorporated major revisions into the manuscript. Hopefully, the revised version could satisfy you. Listed below are our point-by-point responses to your comments.
Please see the appendix for specific responses
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear sir/ma'am
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Study on the evaluation of the development efficiency of smart mine construction and the influencing factors based on the US-SBM model" to sustainability Journal, MDPI. Very good fundamental changes have been made. The article is well and clearly written; I recommend it for publication and can be confirmed. I encourage you to write next article.
We are looking forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Best Regards,
Reviewing Team
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
We are very grateful for your comments and we have made the changes.
Reviewer 3 Report
I don't think there's a problem anymore
Author Response
Dear Reviewer，
We are very grateful for your comments and we have made the changes.
