Grouting Effect Detection within the Floor of a Coal Seam Using 3D Electric Resistivity Tomography (ERT) with Arbitrary Electrode Positions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer Comments
Paper title: Grouting effect detection within the floor of a coal seam using 3D electric resistivity tomography (ERT) with arbitrary electrode positions
A manuscript has a practical application and also provide important theoretical for the next studies.
The paper can be accepted for publication after providing the corrections mentioned below.
Point 1. The abstract should follow the MDPI style of structured abstracts:
- Background (place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study);
- Methods (describe briefly the main methods);
- Results (summarize the article's main findings);
- Conclusion (indicate the main conclusions or interpretations).
Point 2. Keywords need to be modified. Please use words not combinations of words or phrases.
Point 3. Line 34. Please add “electric resistivity tomography” before “(ERT)”. It is necessary when used in the text for the first time.
Point 4. Figure 1 was prepared in the editable vector graphic program. Why do not present it in colour?
Point 5. Figure 1C. as well as Figure 3. I suppose 8826 is not “Working face” but “Extraction panel”
Point 6. There is not necessary to provide calculations (1) and (2) but the formula and the final value must be given (without calculation).
Point 7. Figure 6 must be given after the first mention, not earlier.
Point 8. In the Introduction section, an enhanced literature review is required. For this study, the authors have used only 19 references. It seems insufficient for such type of research. It will be great if the authors show some description in context – Why it is important to conduct this study?
Point 9. The aim and the tasks must be highlighted at the end of the Introduction section.
Point 10. It is quite difficult to read the paper. Why do authors not prepare the paper using a commonly known IMRaD structure?
Point 11. Conclusions must be rewritten. Conclusions should be presented in a summarized form, describing the most important research results, as well as the views of the authors on the practical application of the results.
Point 12. Please consider the suggested research in your paper when enhancing the literature review:
Rudakov, D., & Westermann, S. (2021). Analytical modeling of mine water rebound: Three case studies in closed hard-coal mines in Germany. Mining of Mineral Deposits, 15(3), 22-30. https://doi.org/10.33271/mining15.03.022
Bazaluk, O., Sadovenko, I., Zahrytsenko, A., Saik, P., Lozynskyi, V., & Dychkovskyi, R. (2021). Forecasting Underground Water Dynamics within the Technogenic Environment of a Mine Field: Case Study. Sustainability, 13(13), 7161. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137161
Rudakov, D., & Inkin, O. (2022). Evaluation of heat supply with maintaining a safe mine water level during operation of open geothermal systems in post-coalmining areas. Mining of Mineral Deposits, 16(1), 24-31. https://doi.org/10.33271/mining16.01.024
Author Response
Please see the attachmen, the relevant modifications have been marked red in the article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments from the reviewer:
- Abstract:
- At the beginning of the abstract, there is an introduction to the necessity of doing the work, then the introduction of the study area, the purpose of the work, an introduction to the methods studied, and finally the results and suggestions.
- 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. Add new refernces, for example:
Line 42:
Ali Rezaei, Hossein Hassani, Parviz Moarefvand, Abbas Golmohammadi, 2019. Determination of unstable tectonic zones in C–North deposit, Sangan, NE Iran using GPR method: importance of structural geology. Journal of Mining and Environment (JME), DOI: 10.22044/jme.2019.7378.1590
- Line 140: The supposed block size is not appropriate and is considered large. Please explain more.
- Add the specifications of the geological units in the drilled boreholes (logging).
- Why did you use the Dipole-Dipole array? Please explain more.
- How are the electrode distances considered?
- Wasn't the GPR method more appropriate in this project?
- The result is very brief. Explain the results more clearly in 2 or 3 paragraphs.
- Use newer references and they are few in number. In particular, its literature reviews is weak.
Author Response
Please see the attachmen, the relevant modifications have been marked red in the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1) Please explain what is the Gaussian Newton method.
2) Please explain more clearly the interest and novelty of this work, in order to be accepted to be published in this journal.
3) Update the references.
4) Have the authors used a mathematical model for processing the information oftained using this particular tomography?
5) The authors state that several data are ignored. Why is this? Is it due to mesurement errors?
6) Which are the main contributions of this work that can improve results from previous studies?
7) Could the information attained be useful the estimation of parameters to be used in mathematical models?
Author Response
Please see the attachmen, the relevant modifications have been marked red in the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I am more than satisfied with the corrections provided by you.
This study is an important contribution to the field of mining.
Congratulations to the authors.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
