Research on Comprehensive Evaluation Model of Metal Mine Emergency Rescue System Based on Game Theory and Regret Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a comprehensive evaluation model based on game theory-regret theory, using the G1 method, reverse entropy weighting method, and game theory to respectively calculate the subjective weight, objective weight, and comprehensive weight of the indicators. And the established comprehensive evaluation model of metal mine emergency rescue system based on game theory regret theory was applied to an Iron Mine. The calculation results of the evaluation model are reasonable and reliable, There are several aspects worth improving:

It is fair to add the application of automation technology in mine emergency rescue to the research background.

In general, there is a lack of explanation of factors forming emergency response systems.

 

It is 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.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study. However, authors can improve the quality of their manuscript according to the following comments:

- authors must differentiate "emergency management system" from "emergency response system". The former comprises four phases and one of them is the latter. Please very this issue throughout the manuscript.

- the criteria for different phases of emergency management system should be explained in details. How did the author select or find this criteria?

- the focus of the study is not clear. is it emergency response or emergency rescue? as these two are different one from another. 

- the methodology and procedure of the study is not clear. using a diagram to show the main steps of the study is highly recommended. 

The are some typo errors in the passage. Authors are recommended to verify them. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper attempted to establish an evaluation model for emergency rescue planning in the background of metal mines. Subjective ratings are taken as model input, and treated with regret and game theories for normalizations. Regardless of language, the background and methods are not presented in a well-organized or clear way. Extensive editing is necessary before further consideration for publication. The discussions on page 12 cannot be supported by any results from prior materials. The figures do not have proper explanation of axis. It might be useful to list the actions in Fig. 1 and Tab 3, making the presentation more specific. The manuscript cannot be accepted as scientific writing in its current form.

Extensive editing and polishing are necessary. There are obvious mistakes everywhere including grammar, misuse of upper- or lower-case letters, punctuation, spaces, inconsistent usage of terms, etc. Inline symbols and numbers have obvious errors too.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

 This article is concerned with the research on comprehensive evaluation model of metal mine  emergency rescue system based on game and regret theory. The technical work of this paper is sound and can be published after moderate revision:

1.      Novelty: From Line 90 to 95, the authors tried to elaborate the existing limitation of the current studies. However, it is still ambiguous as of what exactly the gap(s) of the existing studies  the authors are planning to address in this article.

2.      Starting from Line 97, the authors introduced the “game theory-regret theory”. However, there was no discussion of the existing studies of this approach and why the authors believe this approach should be selected for this study, among so many different computational theories or approaches

3.      There are over 20 equations in the main manuscript and I suggest to move most of these equations into Supporting Information file

4.      The authors need to pay attention to the citation style. Some examples are:

a.      At line 49, it is not “Shi Xiuli” but “Shi et al., 2022”

b.      At line 56, it is not “Li Xiao” but “Li et al., 2021”

Mostly, the English writing is fine. There are a few places with grammar errors and strange expressions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewer appreciate the effort on the improvements. The revised paper is recommended for publication.