Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, approaches for the detection and treatment of outliers in processing wind turbines as well as wind farm measurements are reviewed. The authors need to clearly mention the uniqueness and emphasize the key point of their work as they give the conclusion of the related works. Therefore, the paper in its current version requires major revisions. The main concerns are listed below.

1- The authors should clarify and summarize the novel features, the main contributions and the added value of the review conducted in comparison with other relevant surveys presented in the literature.

2- I suggest you provide a short summary, e.g., a table or a comparative analysis related to Section 3: Definitions, Characteristics and Causes of Outliers. There is a lot of information in that section which can be organized more efficiently.

3- There are too many texts and detailed descriptions on some parts of the paper, which make it hard to follow a review paper as it is supposed to be! For example, Detection of Outliers in Processing Wind Turbine and Wind Farm Measurements (Section 4) in forms of tables/figures with a focus on their advantages/disadvantages and applications would give the readers a better overview of the existing methods than providing general information! Moreover, regarding each method/model, a general mathematical representation/flowchart/pseudocode/block diagram is needed to support the text. It will also help readers better map the theory into practice and distinguish the differences among existing models!

4- The conclusions section should be redesigned. At its current form, it contains a synopsis of the work conducted. The authors should clearly cite the key findings of the work, the challenges they met during its implementation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks for the interesting paper and providing a comprehensive review on a very relevant topic of wind energy.

I will recommend some modifications before the paper can be finally accepted.

Please see my suggestions/comments in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have successfully addressed my comments. Therefore, I would recommend the paper to be accepted for publication.