Research on the Optimization of Open-Pit Mine Cast Blasting Parameters Based on the Optimal Economy of Dragline Stripping Technology
Onchanok Juntarasakul
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. How cast blasting under your conditions different between using in large and small size of open pit mine?
2. The parameters that you design for cast blasting are in term of economy. How about Environmental term?.
3.Do you study or review other open-pit mines except Heidaigou. if yes, How the different from each other.
4.Your topic is talk about economy but I'm not sure, your detail are not discuss about this part.
minor editing, I found from mistake
Author Response
Dear expert:
Please refer to the attachment for the revised manuscript and modification instructions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors.
In general, the issue of open pit mines is not a new one. In future publications, it is worth considering also drawing on European, American and Australian experience.
I propose a minor editorial correction, i.e. to abandon the use of the numbering : "(1)".
Nevertheless, I express a positive opinion of the presented work and wish you success in your research.
Regards.
Author Response
Dear expert:
Please refer to the attachment for the revised manuscript and modification instructions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a first review of manuscript: Research on the optimization of open-pit mine cast blasting parameters based on the optimal economy of over-casting stripping system.
Manuscript is slightly ambiguous in some parts.
Some sentences are unclear and confusing.
The Authors should use blasting terms for “minimum resistance line”, “caulk”, etc…
Some Figures are not explained or even mentioned in text, and some explanations in text do not correspond to actual Figure.
However, all these are minor issues.
The major problem is that manuscript is missing real results, as Authors themselves stated that this research is an optimization design IDEA. What improvements did this research made in actual mine (reducing costs, etc…). Conclusion is also missing the same results, which gives no explanation about what is the real benefit of using described method.
Also, when put through PLAGSCAN there is 13,5% detected plagiarism in total.
Manuscript is slightly ambiguous in some parts.
Some sentences are unclear and confusing.
The Authors should use blasting terms for “minimum resistance line”, “caulk”, etc…
Author Response
Dear expert:
Please refer to the attachment for the revised manuscript and modification instructions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
I have no remarks on the content of the paper. The cost analysis shows the upper hand of cast basting and supports the conclusions.
There are a few editorial issues in the paper that could be corrected (e.g. double number "3)" 3rd line from the bottom page 19, double dots in founding sections on page 20).
Author Response
Dear expert:
Please refer to the attachment for the revised manuscript and modification instructions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Unfortunately, the authors did not avoid the most common mistake of analyzing only Chinese authors' published works (only 2 references out of 33 refer to non-Chinese works). I should note that a more detailed review and analysis could have improved the article.
Also, it seems to me that the article would have benefited from a more detailed examination of excavation technology per se.
Author Response
Dear expert:
Please refer to the attachment for the revised manuscript and modification instructions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a second review of manuscript: Research on the optimization of open-pit mine cast blasting parameters based on the optimal economy of over-casting stripping system.
The Authors improved the readability of manuscript.
However, they are still not using blasting terms for all blasting parameters (section from line 306 to 322).
Some specific comments:
- Line 199 – is it really Figure 2?
- Figures 1, 3 and 4 are not explained in textual part.
- Line 295 – “cats” should be replaced with “cast” (probably typing error)
- Line 454 – it is written “ABCDFF” (probably typing error)
- Line 654 – missing %
Abstract and conclusion are improved enough.
Nevertheless, there is still issue with PLAGSCAN, where 13,5% detected plagiarism in total: https://www.plagscan.com/doc?155463611
with 11,7% from Authors another article:
mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/applsci/applsci-12-06428/article_deploy/applsci-12-06428-v2.pdf?version=1656302242
The Authors improved the readability of manuscript.
However, they are still not using blasting terms for all blasting parameters (section from line 306 to 322).
Author Response
Dear expert：
Thank you for reviewing and guiding the manuscript again. Please refer to the attachment for the revised manuscript and revision instructions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
