Review on the Influence and Control of Sulfur-Containing Tailings on the Strength of Cemented Backfill in Metal Mines
, Xiaolin Yang 1,2, Huazhe Jiao 1,2,*, Fengbin Chen 1,2, Liuhua Yang 1,2, Jianxin Yu 1,2 and Yu Fu 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
Presented study is very well structured and written.
I could identify several self-citations. Fortunately, all seem to be justified and just prove former Authors' experience. Anyway, your reference list is very much China-oriented; only 21 references (out of 64) were not written by domestic Authors. I would not mind it if the problem under study was just of local importance, but "Sulphur-containing tailings on the strength of cemented backfill composites" seems to be of global importance as contaminated solid waste is used for backfilling worldwide. That is why, in order to make your "State of the Art" more complex, I'd opt to widen your reference list with international references. You may refer to recent works of Ch. Kongar-Syuryun from Russia e.g., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.145 and https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15103689, M. Hefni from Saudi Arabia e.g., https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116204, M. Fall from Canada e.g., https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01586-x, and make your own search in Scopus and/or MDPI search engine. I provided some recommendations, including reference suggestions in order to make the reference list more international. None of proposed papers is authored by me so there is no personal gain behind it.
Again, about references, please note that according to MDPI template form, all references should be listed in order of appearance in your body text. The format of references should also be adjusted to MDPI template.
Please check all copyright issues related to figures that were copied form cited sources.
In my opinion your contribution could be published "as it is now" concerning its scientific merit. I marked "major revision" just to give you relevant time to introduce some supplements and corrections of the editorial issues.
Best regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper requires major revision. Some relevant reviews have been published, and the author is required to point out the innovation of the article.
-The conclusion and abstract lack of summary, please simplify.
-Even though the references list is long, it is not thorough.
-Section 4 is less developed than section 3. Please improve. Please add a couple of tables summarising the findings from the relevant literature for Section 4.
-The figures (3-6, 8-10, 14-16) in the paper are directly quoted from the papers of other authors. It is suggested to analyze and draw the figures based on several references of data.
-The review is worthy of publication, if this limitation, recommendations, and future research scopes are identified.
-The conclusion section of the article can be improved. Please clearly state the aspects considered in this manuscript in the paragraph of this section, followed by the bullet point conclusions and recommendations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
It seems that all editorial issues were corrected. I did not have any major concerns about scientific merit of your study, so I opt for acceptance in present form.
Best regards and good luck
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.Your comments are of great help to our future research.
Best regards,
Yours sincerely,
Huazhe Jiao
Reviewer 2 Report
I would request the authors to improve the quality of figures. The current figures are below standard, and are not suitable for journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
