Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Research Paper needs the following Strong Revisions and is subject for re-review, and after re-review, the final decision for the paper will be done:

1. Introduction should be more structured and should be oriented more towards problem definition, scope and other technical highlights. Add Objectives of the paper at end of Introduction and min 2-4 Objectives should be there in the paper.

2. Min 15-25 papers should be elaborated with Literature review. And every paper should signify what is proposed, what is the novelty and what experimental results are there. At the end of Literature review, highlight in 9-15 lines what overall technical gaps are observed that led to the design of the proposed methodology.

3. Figure 5 is not clear.

4. Add some more details to the proposed methodology in terms of Flowchart and Algorithm.

5. Add more information towards analysis.

6. Add case study based information to the paper.

7. Add future scope to the paper.

Author Response

Reviewer Comments 1

1. Introduction should be more structured and should be oriented more towards problem definition, scope and other technical highlights. Add Objectives of the paper at end of Introduction and min 2-4 Objectives should be there in the paper.

 

Answer:

Thank you for your valuable comments. According to reviewer’s comment, we have modified the introduction part towards problem definition scope and other technical highlights. Also we have included the objectives at the end of introduction part.

 

2. Min 15-25 papers should be elaborated with Literature review. And every paper should signify what is proposed, what is the novelty and what experimental results are there. At the end of Literature review, highlight in 9-15 lines what overall technical gaps are observed that led to the design of the proposed methodology.

Answer:

Thank you for your valuable comments. According to reviewer’s comment, we have included the additional papers along with their proposed method, novelty and its results which are described in section 2. Also we have added overall technical gaps at the end of Literature Review section.

 

3. Figure 5 is not clear.

Answer:

Thank you for your useful comments. According to reviewer’s comment, we have changed the font size and provide a clear view of figure 5.

 

4. Add some more details to the proposed methodology in terms of Flowchart and Algorithm.

Answer:

Thank you for your valuable comments. According to reviewer’s comment, we have included the flowchart for the proposed methodology (figure 6) at section 4.4.

 

5. Add more information towards analysis.

Answer:

Thank you for your important comments. According to reviewer’s comment, we have included more information about the electric vehicle Performance Evaluation at section 5.

 

6. Add case study based information to the paper.

Answer:

Thank you for your useful comments. According to reviewer’s comment, we have included the case study of this research along with numerical results at the end of section 5.

7. Add future scope to the paper.

Answer:

Thank you for your important comments. According to reviewer’s comment, we have included the future scope at the end of conclusion part.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, this is an interesting work. Authors should carefully consider the following comments:

1- In case studies, numerical results should be given to further support simulation;

2- Authors should undertake a thorough literature review in Introduction to cover the state-of-the-art work related to  Radial Basis Function (RBF)Network used in various engineering domains, see: Design and real-time implementation of an adaptive fast terminal synergetic controller based on dual RBF neural networks for voltage control of DC–DC step-down converter, Electr Eng (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00202-021-01353-y.

3-The overall control structure should be drawn in a diagram;

4- The quality of figure 5 should also be improved.

 

Author Response

Reviewer Comments 2

 

1. In case studies, numerical results should be given to further support simulation;

Answer:

Thank you for your valuable comments. According to reviewer’s comment, we have provided the numerical results for the case study which is clearly described at the end of section 5.

 

2. Authors should undertake a thorough literature review in Introduction to cover the state-of-the-art work related to  Radial Basis Function (RBF)Network used in various engineering domains, see: Design and real-time implementation of an adaptive fast terminal synergetic controller based on dual RBF neural networks for voltage control of DC–DC step-down converter, Electr Eng(2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00202-021-01353-y.

Answer:

Thank you for your important comments. According to reviewer’s comment, we have modified the introduction part and covers the state-of-the-art work related to Radial Basis Function.

 

3. The overall control structure should be drawn in a diagram;

Answer:

Thank you for your useful comments. According to reviewer’s comment, we have included the overall control structure of this research (figure 2) at section 4.

4. The quality of figure 5 should also be improved.

Answer:

Thank you for your valuable comments. According to reviewer’s comment, we have improved the quality of figure 5.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The Revised Paper has incorporated all the revisions as suggested in the last review. And now the paper stands Accepted with no further revisions.