Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented study is relevant. The approaches used for the study are modern. At the same time, the overall impression of the article is very ambiguous. The authors failed to clearly and understandably explain many of the complexities of their study. Authors should correct the following sections:

1) the abstract should be completely rewritten, as it does not fully reflect the essence of the work being done and its contribution.

2) the introduction should justify the relevance of the study

3) after the introduction, the object of study, its features and possible states, as well as problems to be solved, should be more clearly described

4) a review of research and applied methods should be separated from the introduction into a separate section and show what problems other researchers solve with what methods. What exactly should show the connection between problems and existing methods for solving them

5) The research problem should be more clearly formulated in a separate section

6) The description of algorithm 2 and the block diagram in Figure 7 repeat each other

7) you should justify why only 3 cases are considered; in addition, you should clearly articulate the limitations that exist in these cases

8) it is unclear how the comparison of methods was carried out, presented in Tables 4-6 and Figure 16. Criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of methods and the limits of their use are not substantiated

9) there are no conclusions in the article. Discussion of results and possible development should be expanded

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors study the optimal energy dispatching of the integrated energy station with a photo voltaic system and an energy storage system (PE-IES), which can provide energy dispatching schemes among the systems of PE-IES in each time interval. The introduction provide background with insufficient inclusion of relevant references. Authors should add more missing relevant references to the study in literature on joint charging and energy storage systems. What is the scientific difference of their work and the work published in this paper, besides different application context https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351452444_A_Multi-objective_Optimal_Dispatch_Method_for_Integrated_Energy_System_Considering_Multiple_Loads_Variations. Referenced literature not well analysed for clear identification of research gap, I.e., In line 65 "Zhendong Zhang et al. proposed a K-Means time series clustering algorithm to predict solar radiation intensity [13]."The research design appropriate but low originality and poor quality of presentation. Update rigourity of equations from first principles in line 167, 201 backing derivations using cited sources. Resolutions of many figures including but not limited to Figures 13 and 16 are blurred and texts unclear.

Authors must make sure they include more references to prove scientific contribution: 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222026718#! 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40565-017-0279-y

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12379 

https://www.mdpi.com/2032-6653/14/4/95

and many more references.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The author developed a multi-objective optimization dispatching model for integrated energy stations in the research and proposed a many-objective optimization algorithm based on multiple update strategies, which contributed to the fields of energy dispatching and multi-objective optimization algorithm. However, there are still some aspects that need to be improved and refined.

1. Add recent literature on energy dispatch in recent years.

2. Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4 have titles that are identical to that of section 3.4.2. Please make the necessary modifications.

3. Improve the clarity of Figure 16.

The overall structure of the paper is rigorous. Overall, the author's research has a certain academic value and innovation, and it is recommended for acceptance.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks to the authors for the corrections. This has greatly improved the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript has addressed reviewers' comments. Thank you.