Next Article in Journal
Investigation on Individual and Collective PV Self-Consumption for a Fifth Generation District Heating Network
Previous Article in Journal
Efficient IoT-Based Formal Model for Vehicle-Life Interaction in VANETs Using VDM-SL
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Research on Low Voltage Ride through Control of a Marine Photovoltaic Grid-Connected System Based on a Super Capacitor

Energies 2022, 15(3), 1020; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15031020
by Shihao Wang 1, Xujing Tang 1,2,3,*, Xionghang Liu 1 and Chen Xu 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Energies 2022, 15(3), 1020; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15031020
Submission received: 30 November 2021 / Revised: 22 January 2022 / Accepted: 25 January 2022 / Published: 29 January 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper needs a lot of improvement from many sides. The authors should take into account the following constructive comments:

  1. The abstract should be rewritten totally. We advise the authors to check and revise the abstract of this issue. This is very important for the enhancement of the quality and value of the work presented in this paper.
  2. Figure 4 should be redone completely! Please present a block diagram not a Simulink model as a copy-paste!!  This figure gives the impression to the reader that the paper is not taken seriously.
  3. It is written in line 218: “the output power of the system by adjusting the size and phase of the output current ». What do you mean by “size”.
  4. It is important to add a global schema in which you clarify the whole model of the systems such as the PV systems, the conversion system, the proposed storage system, and the grid, where you mention all the variables so that the presented equations in section 3.3 and forward can be clear.
  5. Paragraph from line 217 to line 223 should be rewritten completely.
  6. Paragraph from line 225 to line 232, should be rewritten completely.
  7. It is written in lines 234-235: “current control are transformed by dp inverting to obtain the modulation signal”. What do you mean by “dp”!!
  8. Please revise the form of equation (10)! Is it logical as it!!  Is this equation correct! Try to have a look at Fig. 7! Where is the deficiency!!
  9. Paragraph from line 234 to line 237 should be revised totally, it contains very basic information and does not bring any kind of value.
  10. It is written in lines 255-257:“while the differences between the measured DC/AC power of the inverter will cause the change of bus voltage.”! What do you mean by “the measured DC/AC power”!!
  11. Section 3.4 does not bring any kind of new contribution. The content is very basic, nothing new. Furthermore, the language structure is very poor.
  12. The first paragraph of section 3.5 is not clear at all, it is very confusing, and it needs to be rewritten. The technical value is very poor.
  13. The flowchart presented in Fig. 10 is not clear and does not bring any significant technical information or meaning. It has been performed in a general way. It should be revised or removed totally.
  14. The rest of section 3.5 does not present any significant contribution. It is presented with basic information as general speaking.
  15. Section 4.1, is very confusing, we have the feeling that the authors have not seriously prepared their paper. We feel that as they are jumping from one idea to another without any kind of connection. Furthermore, some terms are not convenient, which makes this part very confusing to understand. This part should be rewritten totally.
  16. Figure 12, very poor! It does not bring any technical meaning. This figure gives the impression of the quality of the preparation of this paper in comparison to the quality of the journal.
  17. All the presented results do not bring anything new. The discussions related to them are very moderate.
  18. After reading the whole paper, we can say that there is no clear contribution. All the explanations are superficial and the presented work is well known, not thing is new or original. The whole paper contains many repetition information, most of the paragraphs are not clear and are written in a very poor way, except the introduction. This paper needs to be revised totally in an accurate way, furthermore, the technical content should be greatly improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The paper has a serious similarity in title with below paper. the authors should clarify the difference between studies in below paper and submitted paper.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7876055

2. The abstract should be consists of some sentences that cover below points that authors need to revise the abstract as follow in summarize

a. a general introduction about the work in maximum 2 sentences.

b. explaining advantage and disadvantages of presented work.

c. some sentences reqarding simulation, experimental and mathematical verifications.

3. the section of modelling pv system does not prepare new information and it is better to be deleted and giving a reference is enough for that.

4. conclusion should be shortened seriously.

5. the simulation parameters should be prepared in a table.

6. is it possible to explain a bit the impact of temprature changes or irradiation on results

7. the simulation results need more explanations.

8. what is novelty in LVRT control strategy

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear All

My comments below.

 

  1. The Authors didn't mention the reference of the Fig.1
  2. Is the Flowchart in Fig. 10 required to be executed once?
  3. Please add more information and explanation of the fig. 11
  4. Fig. 9 for which control part represents in simulation.
  5. Please add more explanations about the figures 16 to 19 (not clear)

 

Best Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Unfortunately, the authors have not responded adequately to all the comments. However, some of the comments have been done. But this is still not sufficient for the improvement of the paper. Bellow check the deficiencies in your responses. 

  1. The abstract should be rewritten totally. We advise the authors to check and revise the abstract of this issue. This is very important for the enhancement of the quality and value of the work presented in this paper.

Answer 1: (Still needs more improvement)

  1. Figure 4 should be redone completely! Please present a block diagram not a Simulink model as a copy-paste!! This figure gives the impression to the reader that the paper is not taken seriously.

Answer 2: (Done)

  1. It is written in line 218: “the output power of the system by adjusting the size and phase of the output current». What do you mean by “size”.

Answer 3: (Done)

  1. It is important to add a global schema in which you clarify the whole model of the systems such as the PV systems, the conversion system, the proposed storage system, and the grid, where you mention all the variables so that the presented equations in section 3.3 and forward can be clear.

Answer 4: (not done)

  1. Revise the caption of Figure 7.
  2. Paragraph from line 217 to line 223 should be rewritten completely. (Done)

Answer 5: (Done)

  1. Paragraph from line 225 to line 232, should be rewritten completely.

Answer 6: (Done)

  1. It is written in lines 234-235: “current control are transformed by dp inverting to obtain the modulation signal”. What do you mean by “dp”!!

Answer 7: (Done)

  1. Please revise the form of equation (10)! Is it logical as it!!  Is this equation correct! Try to have a look at Fig. 7! Where is the deficiency!!

Answer 8: (not correct!!)

  1. Paragraph from line 234 to line 237 should be revised totally, it contains very basic information and does not bring any kind of value.

Answer 9: (Not sufficient)

  1. It is written in lines 255-257:“while the differences between the measured DC/AC power of the inverter will cause the change of bus voltage.”! What do you mean by “the measured DC/AC power”!!

Answer 10: (no answer!!)

  1. Section 3.4 does not bring any kind of new contribution. The content is very basic, nothing new. Furthermore, the language structure is very poor.

Answer 11: (Not sufficient)

  1. The first paragraph of section 3.5 is not clear at all, it is very confusing, and it needs to be rewritten. The technical value is very poor.

Answer 12:  (Not sufficient)

  1. The flowchart presented in Fig. 10 is not clear and does not bring any significant technical information or meaning. It has been performed in a general way. It should be revised or removed totally.

Answer 13: (This is not a response to this comment)

  1. The rest of section 3.5 does not present any significant contribution. It is presented with basic information as general speaking.

Answer 14: (Done)

  1. Section 4.1, is very confusing, we have the feeling that the authors have not seriously prepared their paper. We feel that as they are jumping from one idea to another without any kind of connection. Furthermore, some terms are not convenient, which makes this part very confusing to understand. This part should be rewritten totally.

Answer 15: (Done)

  1. Figure 12, very poor! It does not bring any technical meaning. This figure gives the impression of the quality of the preparation of this paper in comparison to the quality of the journal.

Answer 16: (Done)

  1. All the presented results do not bring anything new. The discussions related to them are very moderate.

Answer 17: (Not sufficient)

  1. After reading the whole paper, we can say that there is no clear contribution. All the explanations are superficial and the presented work is well known, not thing is new or original. The whole paper contains many repetition information, most of the paragraphs are not clear and are written in a very poor way, except the introduction. This paper needs to be revised totally in an accurate way, furthermore, the technical content should be greatly improved.

Answer 18: (The contribution of authors is still very limited. This paper needs more improvements)

Figures 12(a), 12(b),12(c) , and 12(d) should redone. Avoid using grey background. Please be more professional.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

  1. The title should be changed so that the similarity with the title of the below paper removed.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7876055

  1. The abstract can be summarized more.
  2. conclusion section needs to be shortened more and more.
  3. Which section did you add the impact of temprature changes or irradiation on results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for taking into account all the comments.

Back to TopTop