Determination of Gas Extraction Borehole Parameters in Fractured Zone on ‘Borehole in Place of Roadway’ Based on RSM-GRA-GA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Thank you for proposing the manuscript. The topic is really relevant and should be treated. In overall, the manuscript should be of interests in mining industry, especially for underground mining engineers. However, there are several important drawbacks that are visible and should be revised before the manuscript is accepted.

1.       Please add initial decision – making matrix with input data on the basis of which you calculate the weights distribution of each indicator. Also, please add grey relational coefficient matrix with calculated values. It can be very useful for the purpose of educating young researchers.

2.       Please compare the weight distribution results (0.385; 0.285 and 0.33) with traditional objective weighting methods for defining the weights of criteria. I recommend you to apply Entropy method, Standard deviation method or CRITIC method to compare your weight distribution results. Also, give a brief description of the obtained results by numerical and graphical representation.

3.       Please calculate the comprehensive evaluation value results by above-mentioned objective weighting methods and create a new Table named Comprehensive evaluation value results by objective weighting methods, including your calculated results. Also, give a graphical representation of the obtained results.

4.       Please, select one of the proposed objective weighting methods and create a new RSM model predictive analysis in a similar way as you have already shown in Section 4.1. Use genetic algorithm to analyse the obtained results and give a brief discussion of the results compared to yours in Section 6.

5.       I would recommend you to create a new Section named Comparative analysis where you will show all comparative results. A comparative analysis would provide a clearer and more reasonable concept and proof of your final results. On that way, you will verify and validate your developed model.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Review of the manuscript number processes-1825438

 General comments:

-        The paper topic is in line with the scope of “Processes”.

-        The scope and the type of cited literature is appropriate, but not enough.

-        Major revisions are needed to improve the quality of this manuscript before acceptance . 

The following revisions will contribute, if addressed, to enhancing the quality of the paper further:  

 

-        Please enhance your introduction and provide the definition and schmat of scales for gas diameter extraction borgoles , their limits, their specifications and technical characterisations, enrich your manuscript with updated references  .

-        The same comment can be forwarded for selecting the right borehole parameters, enrich your manuscript with updated references.

-        It is advisable to mention the main assumptions and initial conditions of you mathematical model.

-        It is very advisable to separate or devide between the duscussions and results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate your very extensive responses. You completely accepted and revised all of my suggestions and drawbacks. In my opinion, this paper can be accepted in present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Review of the manuscript number : processes-1825438-peer-review-v2

The authors have successfully addressed forwarded comments and after going through the work that has been done on the manuscript in responding to the comments, my recommendation is to accept the manuscript for publication in “Processes” journal.