Research on the Optimization Method of Safety Input Structure in Coal Mine Enterprise
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The submitted manuscript "Research on optimization method of safety input structure in coal mine enterprise" needs the following modifications.
1) In general, many grammatical errors are found, and it is necessary to supplement them in revision if possible.
2) There are too many errors in the format of the Journal. For example, Jiang F. C. (Page 2, Line 2) is modified as Jiang et al. (2021).
2) Page 1, Line 46: Add the references
3) Page 2, Line 91: It is necessary to rewrite the originality and necessity of the manuscript.
4) Page 3, Line 102~123: Move to the introduction part to provide basic knowledge with respect to your manuscript. It is judged that it is difficult to provide the necessary information for the manuscript through the currently submitted introduction.
5) Page 3, Line 147~149: Structure 2 seems to contain more detailed information, but it is necessary to check whether it is written incorrectly.
6) Page 5, Line 170: All equations used in the manuscript require numbering.
7) Reference: Please check that the format of the references used and the information presented are accurately indicated. Everything marked with J in the format was deleted and the information in Reference 11 was confirmed to be incorrect.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Rewrite the abstract because it lacks some basic component general background, research question. The innovation and problem statement should be clearly stated. Extensive editing of English language is required because it is hard to understand. There should be a decent transition from one section to another. The authors have not paid attention to Capital letter. The discussion should be rewritten or merged with the results. In addition, clearly state the significance your research
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Journal: Processes
Paper: Research on Optimization Method of Safety Input Structure in Coal Mine Enterprise
The paper is very interesting, the topic is actual and the methods used are correct and valuable for other scientists.
My comments:
§ The Figs are not clear, please support them (fig. 1, fig. 2)
§ the formula from table 1 (aij) should be extracted and given separately in edited form and marked as number 1.
§ Formula CI = ( λmax − n ) / ( n − 1 ), now it is no. 2 (please add the number after the formula)
Example: CI = ( λmax − n ) / ( n − 1 ) (2)
§ the figures next to the RI have been rearranged, please fit them on one line
§ please add the formula on RI (3)
§ Please number all the formulas
§ use italic font in your designations, e.g. J indicator should be J indicator. This note applies to all symbols used in text, sometime is formulas italic is but in the text no.
§ to the sentence: The Corbb Douglas production function (C-D production function), proposed by 220 American mathematician C.W.Cobb and economist Paul H.Douglas in the 1930s, add proper position in literature, they paper is in Internet.
§ explain why you chose only the MES formula to indicate the model adjustment (error assessment), there are many other formulae, you just have to write why this one.... ....
§ explanation to tabele 3 safety input and safety output statistics of a coal mine enterprise 2001 to 2010 why the period from 2001 to 2010, now is 2022, if there was no more data, please explain in the text
§ in point 5.3. we have no of formulas… ln B ln ln ln = A P P + + b b （4）but and before that there was no
§ point 5.5 Discussion in my opinion is too short. In the discussion, the authors should show where the methodology can be applied outside mining, I admit that I myself applied the C-D function to study the metallurgical sector in Poland, so maybe show other researchers what they did and how, and that the C-D function is still useful after so many years
Final sentence: I like the method used in the article, the combination of several is scientifically valuable.
Best wishes
Reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors have revised the manuscript according to the recommendations. I am very happy to accept the paper in its current form, however, moderate English changes are still needed.
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.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article mainly studies the safety investment and its output optimization of coal mine enterprises. Overall, the structure of the article is clear, however, there are still some problems. I recommend major revision of the paper before it is reconsidered for acceptance:
1. First of all, there is a sentence at the second paragraph of the introduction, i.e., “Although research on safety input has reached a very mature stage in China, there is currently no relevant study on the influence of various safety input models on safety output.”, What is the current research status of safety investment worldwide? The main references in this manuscript seem to be all from Chinese journals. Is there any limitation? In addition, the input model and output model in this study are both derived from previous studies. I can't seem to find your innovations.
2. As for safety input, the author refers to Duan H.F[13]'s definition of safety cost. I think the meaning is different between “cost” and “input”. Input should be the proactive investment of the enterprise, and the cost may be subjective or objective cost. Therefore, it is inaccurate that “safety input” is assumed to include preventive safety input and accident.
3. As for the loss model, Model S1 and S2 seem to have no essential difference. S2 is the substructure of S1. Is it meaningful to compare them together?
4. In Section 4, the data is from 2001 to 2010. Is it too old? Is the safety input and output of enterprises different in the digital era?
5. There are some problems in grammar, especially the lack of prepositions in many sentences, such as “are constructed using literature references”. “which also called cost of safety input”, Is this sentence missing “is”. It is suggested to polish the language and correct the grammar.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
We are very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we tried our best to amend the relevant part and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. All your questions were answered below attachment. And here we list the changes and marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours Sincerely,
Jinyun Zhu
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper under review deals with solving an optimization problem related to safety investments in coal mines in China. The authors consider two models with two and five input factors respectively to approximate the function of safety investment in each case. They assume that the function in both models can assume the form of the Cobb-Douglas function and then use appropriate software to fit this function to the actual data, thus determining all of the parameters. Finally, they find the minimal values of the safety investment function in both cases - also with the aid of appropriate software.
1. The authors must improve the presentation, there are way too many typos, inaccuracies, etc. For example, some words are capitalized when they shouldn't, extra spaces, or absence thereof. Many letters that denote quantities within the text don't have appropriate subscripts (e.g., B1, while it had to be B_1, etc).
2. The writing and style must be improved as well.
3. The authors have to justify the use of the Cobb-Douglas function in this context. It can be used to fit the data having certain properties (i.e., the growth in factors and production must be fairly steep). This is the key point of the research project and so it must be properly explained why this particular data can be approximated by the C-D function with the best accuracy. In particular, the authors should use R programming, for example, to show that the accuracy is appropriate in this case.
Author Response
Dear reviewers:
We are very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we tried our best to amend the relevant part and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. All your questions were answered below attachment. And here we list the changes and marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours Sincerely,
Jinyun Zhu
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made some modifications, but I still think that the key problems have not been solved. For example, why are the two child-parent models (S1 and S2) compared? Grammar problems in original manuscript and response are prominent. Therefore, I recommend to reject the manuscript, which has not reached the publication level from the degree of innovation or writing. I will explain in detail below.
1) First of all, I still think that there is no systematic review of the literature, and there are no studies other than the studies by Chinese. The outstanding research in this field is only in China? Thus, the conclusion “Although research on safety input has reached a very mature stage in China, there is currently no relevant study on the influence of various safety input models on safety output.” is not necessarily accurate. Further, it is worth discussing whether the innovation point is innovative. The innovation is the significance of a paper. I think it not only comes from the literature research, but also from the practical problems. We cannot simply say that the efficiency of safety input is very important. The efficiency of safety input in information technology and healthcare is also significant and needs attention. The efficiency of coal safety input is not a new topic, and can be traced back to the last century or even earlier.
2) As for safety input model, why you refers to “D,H.F;Wang,L.J;Jin,Q.Z.Delimit safety input and safety cost in coal mine[J].China Safety Science Journal,2006(06):65-70+145” ? Has it received a lot of attention, and been cited many times? Is it classic? I don't seem to have heard of it.
3) As for the loss model, Model S1 and model S2 obviously overlap, how can we talk about comparison? The loss cost is of course different because S2 contains more specific sub-indicators. How to measure the investment in subject and in people in S1? Does the data coincide with the index of S2?
4) The grammar problems in the manuscript still need to be improved, and there are flaws in the response. For example, “I'm sorry that my lack of clarity does not explain that the two models are the comparison of the underlying factor and its upper factor in the actual simulation. I have added some supplements to the second paragraph of Section 5.” in Response 3, Can “my lack of clarity” make an explanation? It cannot be the subject of “explain”. Further, “the two models are the comparison…”? I can't understand what you said.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The presentation has been improved. However, there are still a few places where the authors missed space. Please correct this. Otherwise, the paper can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
We appreciate your comments and suggestions! We have corrected some mistakes in the manuscript.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I still think there are two important problems:
I don't think this manuscript is very innovative in terms of research paradigm or research methods. As the authors said, the research question is not new and the method model is not original, but the research conclusion is very meaningful. I don't agree with this view.
If you explain the model S1 and S2, you also know that S2 and S1 are inclusive. Why not directly use S2 as the benchmark? In fact, you only analyzed one model, S2. I really don't understand the significance of S1.
