Evaluating the Eco-Intensity Dynamics of the Mining Industry in Russia: Towards a Circular Economy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript have the moderate writing but the result and figures are not well present. To improve the manuscript, please revise the manuscript folowing the comments below.

- Abstract is too short. The scope and research methodology are not well describe. 

- Please, check all abbreviation. The authors must provide the full word and abbreviation at first presenting and after that abbreviation are available. For example, “circular economy (CE)”.

- Please, check all "." and "," both in the main text and figure.

- Please, check all the superscript and subscript in the manuscript.

- Figure 1: The word “Back” degrowth (BID). It should be “Black” degrowth (BID).

- Table 3: The word “Back” degrowth (BID). It should be “Black” degrowth (BID).

- Table 5: Please, check the table. It should be in the same page.

- Figure 6: Please, place the figure caption under the figure

- Table 10: Please, check the table. It should be in the same page.

- There are three research question but the conclusion answer only the RQ3. The material and method was well described but all the figure were not in a good quality. 

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for the valuable comments

Point 1: Abstract is too short. The scope and research methodology are not well describe. 

Response 1: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 2: Please, check all abbreviation. The authors must provide the full word and abbreviation at first presenting and after that abbreviation are available. For example, “circular economy (CE)”.

Response 2: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 3: Please, check all "." and "," both in the main text and figure.

Response 3: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 4: Please, check all the superscript and subscript in the manuscript.

Response 4: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 5: Figure 1: The word “Back” degrowth (BID). It should be “Black” degrowth (BID).

Response 5: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 6: Table 3: The word “Back” degrowth (BID). It should be “Black” degrowth (BID).

Response 6: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 7: Table 5: Please, check the table. It should be in the same page.

Response 7: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 8: Figure 6: Please, place the figure caption under the figure

Response 8: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 9: Table 10: Please, check the table. It should be in the same page.

Response 9: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 10: There are three research question but the conclusion answer only the RQ3. The material and method was well described but all the figure were not in a good quality. 

Response 10: Corrected according to note.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find the Revision of the Manuscript in the following comments and suggestions below, which can improve the received Manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you so much for the valuable comments

Point 1: Abstract: This part of the Paper needs some advancements. Enhance this part of the Paper with some numeral data from obtained results of your study. Also, add one sentence about the importance of the circular economy from the aspects of environmental and raw resource protection.

Response 1: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 2: Keywords: it is recommended to not repeat the word from the Title into keywords if it is possible.

Response 2: The words "mining industry" are excluded from the keywords. It was decided to leave "circular economy" as it is the area of scientific interests of the authors.

 

Point 3: Introduction: Line 28- 41: Merge the first two paragraphs of this chapter into one. A good representation of the importance of a circular economy nowadays.

Response 3: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 4: Introduction: Line 39-41: Please add the reference at the end of the sentence. Also, after every mention of P. Victor, add a reference for this method.

Response 4: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 5: Introduction: Line 48: Mistake in mentioned references.

Response 5: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 6: Introduction: Line 89-92: This sentence could be placed after the sentence in Line 41.

Response 6: In our opinion, the transfer of this sentence violates the logic of substantiating research questions. Therefore, it was decided to leave it unchanged.

 

Point 7: Introduction: Give a better explanation of the aims of this Manuscript at the end of this chapter.

Response 7: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 8: Materials and Methods: Line 122-123: Please add the references where the applied assessment methods are better explained by the mentioned author (P. Victor). Also, in Lines 137-138.

Response 8: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 9: Materials and Methods: Figure 1. There is a missing letter in the word “B(l)ack” at the right on the Diagram.

Response 9: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 10: Results: Line 267-277: Enhance this part with some Legislative Plans with their aims for this period (2011-2021). Are they accomplished, or if they are not, what can be done to improve current conditions?

Response 10: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 11: Results: Line 278: Is this the first study where OLS estimation was done for this industry sector in Russia? Can you compare these results with some others, if it is possible?

Response 11: There are few studies assessing the environmental and economic development of the mining industry in the Russian Federation. Unfortunately, these studies do not use OLS estimation.

 

Point 12: Discussions and Future Research Perspectives: Line 391-393: Maybe it is more suitable to place this sentence in the Abstract of this Manuscript.

Response 12: This sentence has been reformulated and added to the Abstract.

 

Point 13: Line 415-424: Use bullets when enumerating novelties, it is more suitable.

Response 13: Corrected according to note.

 

Point 14: Conclusion Greatly written chapter with tremendous findings. However, please rethink reducing this chapter by placing some summaries into the Discussion.

Response 14: Corrected according to note.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All concerns were corrected as pe reviewer comments and suggesttions.