Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion the article presents an interesting issue and the form of delivery makes it interesting to read. However, I have a few comments:

1. in my opinion, the topic is presented too generally. I miss detailed data about the network that was analyzed, details on how the analysis was done. The authors state that they researched something and got some results but it is not clear what they researched, how and where.
2. the authors talk about location of DG but nowhere do I find information where DG was located (maybe I missed it?). I miss specific mention of the layout that was analyzed.
3. In Table 3, the authors name locations A, B, C, ... and state that location A is best. What I am missing here is a map/schematic with the locations marked.
4. the authors state that they use neural networks during their research but they do not state which ones and how they use them. This lacks details of the method.

The above remarks make it difficult, although the article is interesting, to relate it to the existing power supply networks and to extract information that could be used for their modernization.  Due to the low level of detail of the study it is also impossible to open the research given by the authors by interested persons in order to verify the correctness of the results. As a result, the article is rather a curiosity and does not bring specific and useful knowledge.

Technical Notes:

1. on page 7 lines 189 and 191 - there is an offset of symbols and their descriptions.

To sum up, in my opinion, the article has a layout and content typical for scientific papers and is quite carefully prepared. The article also touches an interesting and practical subject but in my opinion in too general way. I hope that in the next articles authors will present specific and useful schemes, maps, solutions, calculations, methods.

Author Response

Please see that attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The structure of the article is inadequate. Introduction, 2.- Related works (innovation and comparison with what has already been published on the subject), 3.- Formulation of the problem, 4.- Analysis of the results (strong metrics of the simulations), 5.- Conclusions (based on the results found and detailed in the metrics). 6.- References (To reach 30 articles all with DOI).
Figure 1 must be self-authored. It is suggested to use Illustrator to redo the figure with a better resolution and innovate the current figure.
Figure 2 should be made in Matlab and obtain the respective pdf file using print -dpdf -r800 figure2.
Figure 3 should be made in Illustrator and get the PDF file to improve the resolution.
Figure 4 should be changed to a conceptual graphic and introduced in the introduction section 1.
Figure 5 should be placed in the problem formulation section.
Figure 6 should be made in Illustrator and improve the resolution.
There are two figures 7
Figure 8 should be done in Matlab or directly in OverLeaf.
Figure 9 should be changed to the real georeferenced network.
Figure 10 should be done in Matlab or directly in OverLeaf.
References should be changed notably in a range 2021-2017 from Sciencedirect, MDPI, SAGE, Taylor & Francis, Wiley, Springer, IEEE (Magazine, Journal, Transactions).

It is suggested to use Overleaf to build the document with adequate quality.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript, the authors reported application of Distributed Generation (DG) as a distributed source in distribution system to evaluate its reliability impacts. It was found that location of DG is design criteria problem that has relevant effect on reliability of distribution system. Artificial Neural Network (ANN) technique was applied to find the optimum location  of DG. Findings were confirmed by applying the proposed approach on Roy Billinton Test (RBTS) test system. Results proved the injection of DG at proper location enhanced the reliability of the distribution system to acceptable levels identified by IEEE standards. Overall, the manuscript is well-organized and the novelty of the work is high. Therefore, I recommend the current manuscript for publication in the journal of Sustainability the following points are addressed:  

• Please include the full address of the authors (faculty name, country etc.)
• The author should describe all symbols in the manuscript
• A related recent paper from the journal of Sustainability should be cited.
• Please extend discussion for RBTS bus 2 modeled in ETAP using ANN DG is injected at Optimum Location
• Figures and tables must be align with the text

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is well described, they are few english mistakes.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

- Figures 1,4,8 should be changed and made by the author, and it is recommended to use Adobe Illustrator.

- Matlab figures should be saved in PDF format. It is recommended to use the command print -dpdf -r800 figure13. Review figure 13,14
- The document requires changing its structure to 1.- Introduction, 2.- Related Works (State of the Art - Bibliometric Analysis - VosViewer with data from Web of Science and Scopus), 3.- Problem Formulation (Table of Variables, Pseudocode and ordering the currently presented equations), 4. - Analysis of results (improve the quality of the figures and evidence that the results contribute and innovate according to other publications, 5.- References (Use a range 2021-2017 include publications Sciencedirect, MDPI, SAGE, Taylor & Francis, Springer, Wiley). It is recommended not to use URLs as references.
- It is recommended to evidence that the model is flexible and in future works to expose a possibility to include a scalable scenario with the growth of demand and growth of users. This analysis allows identifying the planning of the electric system.

Author Response

Please find the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The work loses its quality considerably when using a word processor such as Word. It is recommended to use Overleaf and use the figures in PDF format as they are currently presented in low resolution.
The conclusions should be expanded according to the analyzed metrics articulated to the research objective, highlighting if innovation has been achieved in the study compared to other proposals that should have been presented in section 2 (related works).

Using references is suggested to perform data curation from Mendeley to correct and include metadata missing in the references. It is suggested to use a range 2021-2017.