Sustainability of Extraction of Raw Material by a Combination of Mobile and Stationary Mining Machines and Optimization of Machine Life Cycle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Article presents the results of scientific discussion on the issue of using mining machines and their life cycle. The impact of a combination of mobile and stationary mining machines and their optimal distribution in the mining process to increase the efficiency of mining and processing of raw materials was presented. Comparison analysis for real and past state of mining machines, for optimal alternative of mining machine and decision tree as managerial instrument was used. The received results of empiric research confirm that for mining company is very important optimal distribution of mining machines. In the article the new location of the machines and the combination of stationary production lines and mobile equipment was shown. It had big influance into total costs, efficiency, reliability and service life. The results can be useful for another mining companies by create optimal machine park.
The article is correctly written. I don't saw major foults. I have only remark to change the position of figure 11 into the begining of chapter no 3, to change the number of picture to 5 and consistently number subsequent drawings - 5 as 6, 6 as 7 etc. If reference is made to a figure, it should be placed immediately after its citation. And next remark. The descriptions in figures 5 and 11 should be larger. Currently, they are hardly visible.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. 

I repaired all your comments. 

figure 11 - to position 228-230 at beginning of chapter 3

216 image number correction 4

230 image number correction 5

233 image number correction 7

234 image number correction 6

245 image number correction 7

254 image number correction 8

254 image number correction 9

264 image number correction 10

265 image number correction 11

216 figure 4 change font size new figure 

228 figure 5 change font size  new figure 

 

Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

• In many sentences there are a double reference to the same literature. At the beginning of the sentence is the name and at the end is a number of the reference. Why???
• Figure 5-8 have the different size.
• Figures 4 and 11 are illegible.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. 

I repaired all your comments. 

All references are used only one times as source of information, we checked it out 

At the beginning of the sentences is the name of author, because we would like to presents important authors for mining area, that solved the same problem and we think it is very important. At the end of sentences must be references.

241  figure 5  we change size of figure as all figures 

261 figure 8 we change size of figure as all figures 

215 figure 4 we repaired font size at the figures as new scheme 

229 figure 5 (it was figure 11) we repaired font size at the figures as new scheme and we moved the image according to the comments of another reviewer

 

Reviewer 3 Report

I reviewed the manuscript "Sustainability from the extraction of raw materials through a combination of fixed and mobile mining machinery and optimization of the machine life cycle," the authors Katarína Teplická, Martin Straka.
The subject of the manuscript is interesting and the title informative and relevant. The abstract is short but well describes the purpose of the article. References are recent and relevant, properly organized, and appropriate key studies are included.
The introduction is written in an unclear way and should be reviewed in a more readable way. Bibliographic references are indicated unevenly in the text, authors should check that they all adhere to the journal's rules.
The Materials and Methods and Results paragraphs are presented in a sufficiently adequate manner. While paragraphs discussion and conclusions should be reorganized and revised as suggested for the introduction.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

thank you for your comments, we repaired all your comments followed: 

The abstract is short but the conditions of journal are 200 words for abstract and we have 200 words that we can not added.

We repaired the introduction is written in an unclear way and should be reviewed in a more readable way.

Bibliographic references are all used in text.
Results we reorganized and repaired figure 4., 5. - Production cycle of raw material before , after optimizing.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I have read the revised version of the manuscript "Sustainability of extraction of raw material by a combination of mobile and stationary mining machines and optimization of machine life cycle".

I would like to thanks the authors for their prompt reply.