Next Article in Journal
Geochronology, Geochemistry, and Lu-Hf Isotopic Compositions of Monzogranite Intrusion from the Chang’anpu Mo Deposit, NE China: Implications for Tectonic Setting and Mineralization
Next Article in Special Issue
Prediction of the Mechanical Performance of Cemented Tailings Backfill Using Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Measurement
Previous Article in Journal
Ore Genesis of the Toudaochuan Gold Deposit in Central Jilin Province, NE China: Constraints from Fluid Inclusions and C–H–O–S–Pb Isotopes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Prediction of the Adaptability of Using Continuous Extraction and Continuous Backfill Mining Method to Sequestrate CO2-A Case Study
Peer-Review Record

Research on the Stability Mechanism of the Surrounding Rock of Gob-Side Entry Retaining by Roof Cutting in Dianping Coal Mine

Minerals 2022, 12(8), 965;
Reviewer 1: Madhup Pandey
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Minerals 2022, 12(8), 965;
Received: 5 May 2022 / Revised: 12 July 2022 / Accepted: 14 July 2022 / Published: 29 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Solid-Filling Technology in Coal Mining)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents an investigation of the structural characteristics and stability mechanism of the surrounding rock of gob-side entry retaining by roof cutting. This is an interesting research work with significant useful insights. The paper is well written and suits the overall scope and aims of this journal. This reviewer has the following comments on the current version of this manuscript:

1.      How to resolve the issues highlighted in lines 98-107 for GERRC?

2.      The movement process in Figure 2 can be further explained.

3.      The technicality of the effect of GERRC on the breaking of roadways should be further detailed.

4.      In Figure 5, the U type steel is not clear.


5.      How reliable are the values and parameters mentioned in lines 240-244?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

I read your manuscript with great interest. The article deals with an interesting topic: the control of the stress-strain state by passing a cutting slot in the roof of the working.


However, the topic considered in this paper is not new. As early as June 23, 1985, the certificate (patent) SU1162988A was registered in the USSR, which recommended a method for unloading the mine working contour. For this purpose, it is recommended to create unloading slots along the entire length of the working and fill them with pliable material. Many similar inventions have been registered since then. Anyway, every new development in that field of knowledge would be very appreciated, because of possible practical outcomes.

Please find below the list of my detailed comments. 

1.) From my point of view, the name needs to be changed. In view of the fact that the research topic is not new, the authors do not include novelty in the research, from my point of view, the object of research should be noted in the title, for example: in relation to such and such a deposit or in the conditions of such and such a mine.

2.) Despite the fact that the presented abstract reflects the essence of the study, from my point of view, it is a little blurry and framed incorrectly. The abstract should clearly indicate the purpose of the study, its importance for society (that is, characterize the problem), indicate the methods and materials of the study.

2.1) Therefore, it is desirable to avoid narrative text in the annotation.

2.2) Try to use words and phrases: an analysis was made; carried out; studied; developed; proposed; installed and others. It is advisable to start sentences in the abstract with these words and phrases.

2.3 At the end of the abstract, it is necessary to indicate the final result obtained by the authors, for example: A model has been developed that allows ...; Installed a dependency that is....; An efficient system has been proposed, and so on.

3.) The authors claim that the GERRC method is relatively new (line 44). However, in the previously described patent, the idea of cutting the roof and making cutting slots at different angles has already been implemented. From my point of view, the authors need to more carefully familiarize themselves with world experience.

4.) In the introduction, the authors analyze previous studies. The authors specify what was done by one or another researcher. However, no conclusion has been drawn. There is no information: what are the omissions in previously conducted studies, what has not been done. What needs to be taken as a basis, and what needs to be improved.

5.) The authors' assertion in line 99 that these studies are at an early stage is highly questionable, subjective, and unsupported.

6.) At the end of the introduction, there are no conclusions on the analysis. This conclusion allows us to characterize the actual question posed, the purpose of the study and the tasks to be solved to achieve this goal. For example: Analyzing the above, it can be noted that ...... is a very topical issue. Therefore, the purpose of this study is ..... and to achieve which it is necessary to solve the following tasks: 1); 2); ..... Such a conclusion allows the reader to understand the vector of the study, and the authors at the end of the study correctly formulate conclusions on it.

 7.) Who made the drawings 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 if by the authors, then it is necessary to indicate (done by the authors), if borrowed, then it is necessary to indicate the source of the borrowing or make an appropriate link to the source. If you have permission to submit a borrowed drawing, please provide this permission to the editor.

8.) The authors describe the model in detail (line 92-108), but the parameters are not given: the height and width of the face; length of one advancement of the face; the location of the cutting gap; cutting slot parameters (width) and so on. Without these data, it is not possible to repeat the experiment, if such a desire arises in the reader after reading your study.

9.) When developing the model, the authors did not specify the boundary conditions, conditions of convergence and similarity. The only thing that was indicated was the roof simplification tolerance, like a console (line 143).

10.) "CRLDAC" appears frequently in the text. The text is not deciphered.

11.) From my point of view, the conclusions (1) indicated in pages 331-338 are not relevant to the study. The authors in the work did not set the task: to determine the order of the production processes. Moreover, these stages have long been defined and inherent in the conduct of mining operations at any mining enterprise.

12.) The manuscript has a rather meager list of references (23 in total), the main volume is made up of Chinese authors. Undoubtedly, in recent times, Chinese scientists have been doing a lot of research and presenting it on display. But the contribution of scientists from other countries is also undeniable. Most of the works are over 5 years old (13) and many are over 10 years old. Very weak citation geography. The question posed in the present study is very relevant. You have undeservedly ignored the studies of Ukrainian, Eastern European and Russian scientists working in this direction for the last 5 years.

I noticed a very high percentage of self-citations (7 references). Most of them seem to be relevant, however, I’d suggest to lower the number of self-citations for a wider world-experience oriented “State of the Art” report. You may refer to recent works of Ch. Kongar-Syuryun from Russia e.g. 10.31897/PMI.2022.2 and make your own search in Scopus and/or MDPI search engine.

Please keep in mind, that widening of geography of your citations attracts more readers and, last but not least, raises the citing potential of your study.

Summary. From my point of view, the authors have carried out a large research work presented in this manuscript. The study touches on a fairly relevant topic.

From my point of view, the manuscript is worthy of publication in the open press with the correction of the shortcomings indicated in my review. I marked “major revision” just because of the number of my comments and not because any major faults of your study.


Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

A revised manuscript with a changed title was submitted for re-review: "Research on the Stability Mechanism of the Surrounding Rock of Gob-side Entry Retaining by Roof Cutting in Dianping coal mine" by MA Zi-min, WANG Yan-jun, HUANG Long, WANG Hao -hao, WANG Jiong, WANG Zhao-xuan, WANG Yan-long, WANG Bo-tao.


I cannot be completely satisfied with the answer of the authors and the changes made.


1.) The authors did not make changes to remark (7). They indicate that the diagrams were made by the authors, but there were no remarks on the diagrams. It is still not clear to me: who made figures 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. The note by the authors: "need no special explanation" is not correct. Since if they are made by the authors, then it is necessary to indicate: done by the authors, and this should not be hidden. In this way, you confirm your authorship and remove responsibility from the publisher. Or indicate the source of the citation.


2.) The authors did not make changes to remark (8). The author's answer is not entirely correct. If the authors indicate that the model presented in the manuscript is "general", then there should be a developed methodology and it should be referred to. The reader has the right to familiarize with these "general" rules and, if desired, repeat this experiment. It is necessary to specify the parameters or refer to the "general" methodology.


3.) The authors did not make changes to remark (12). The undermined mass stability study is not a purely Chinese study. The resolution of this issue is important for mining enterprises around the world. No one denies the contribution of Chinese scientists to the development of modern science. But the geography of citation needs to be expanded. The idea with GERRC was not born from scratch, but there were previously conducted studies that formed the basis. If YOU claim relevance, then references to recent studies and international experience are required.


From my point of view, the authors have not eliminated the comments that affect the quality of the manuscript. In this form, the manuscript cannot be published in the open press.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop