Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors!

The work is devoted to an interesting topic - the creation of a customizable secondary controller to implement the frequency control function in a microgrid system based on the mayfly optimization algorithm.

However, despite the analysis of literary sources, there are a number of points that I advise you to pay special attention to:

1. The influence (algorithmic or functional relationship) of fluctuations in the cost of renewable energy sources on the values of the frequencies of the system is poorly presented in the work, although this is stated in the abstract.

2. In modern control systems and ensuring the stability of the functioning of energy facilities, as a rule, special attention is paid to the prevention of pre-emergency situations. This view deals only with stabilization during emergency load situations. The work could be much more interesting if you took this fact into account.

3. It is not entirely clear why the description of standard algorithms or elements of the theory of automatic control is given, such as: "3.2. Mayfly Algorithm" or "PID controller". These are standard and well-known things. Indicate only the modifications proposed by you - your personal contribution.

4. Informativeness of Figure. 6: del F comparison of MG for RLP ends at 15 seconds. In my opinion, the visualization of the behavior of the graphs could be more interesting in this segment when the scale was re-constructed.

5. The conclusions given in section 6 require mathematical justification.

6. To solve optimization problems of what scale can the solutions you declare be applied? Under what restrictions?

7. To what extent, in your opinion, can this work - https://www.hindawi.com/journals/itees/2022/5612334/ be useful for your research?

8. Which of Mayfly's optimization algorithms could be more effective in your case (single-target or multi-target)? I did not find a rationale for the choice in the text of the work.

9. And here are the last two points that require critical revision in terms of the structure of the article:

9.1. There is no section "Discussion" in the work. It is not clear what the authors' main points are ahead of existing research, what were the limitations and what future prospects of the research the authors see...

9.2. In conclusion, the generalization of the study is not formulated - what is the main result obtained (what are the main results are secondary).

Good luck with revisions!

There are errors in conjugations and endings. The work as a whole must be checked by a native speaker.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam

We have submitted the response to your valuable comments. Please find the same

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article seems promising to publish in this journal. However, Need some following corrections: 

Review Comments:

Remove the highlighted lines 16, 19, 20, and 21, as requested.

Ensure that British English is used throughout the manuscript, as highlighted.

In the Keywords section, please arrange the keywords in alphabetical order.

Line 33: Replace "environmental issue" with the specific environmental issue being addressed.

Line 35: Add references here, such as the following:

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032119305969

https://sustainenergyres.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40807-021-00068-9

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8075797

Line 42: Replace "Controllers" with a more specific term if possible.

Line 204: Add the appropriate reference here.

Lines 263: Add the appropriate reference here.

Line 269: Create a space before the word "enter" for improved readability.

Line 431: Add a section titled "Conclusions, Recommendations, and Future Work."

Line 470: Update the references to be no more than 5-7 years old. Follow the Journal guidelines for reference formatting.

Please follow the Journal Guidelines for formatting the Tables, Figures, and Equations No. Align in the centre and clearly format in the clearly visible. 

Please address these comments and make the necessary revisions to improve the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

This article seems promising to publish in this journal. However, Need some following corrections: 

Review Comments:

Remove the highlighted lines 16, 19, 20, and 21, as requested.

Ensure that British English is used throughout the manuscript, as highlighted.

In the Keywords section, please arrange the keywords in alphabetical order.

Line 33: Replace "environmental issue" with the specific environmental issue being addressed.

Line 35: Add references here, such as the following:

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032119305969

https://sustainenergyres.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40807-021-00068-9

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8075797

Line 42: Replace "Controllers" with a more specific term if possible.

Line 204: Add the appropriate reference here.

Lines 263: Add the appropriate reference here.

Line 269: Create a space before the word "enter" for improved readability.

Line 431: Add a section titled "Conclusions, Recommendations, and Future Work."

Line 470: Update the references to be no more than 5-7 years old. Follow the Journal guidelines for reference formatting.

Please follow the Journal Guidelines for formatting the Tables, Figures, and Equations No. Align in the centre and clearly format in the clearly visible. 

Please address these comments and make the necessary revisions to improve the article.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam

We have submitted the response to your valuable comments. Please find the same

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Although the manuscript theme is cultivating and worthy of publication. Still it would be better if authors incorporate a detailed Numerical analysis supporting the result graphics, in the results section.

Moderate English editing required 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam

We have submitted the response to your valuable comments. Please find the same

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. In my opinion, the paper is proper and is within the scope of this journal.

2. There are several typo problems and the resolution of Figures 2, 3, and 4 is low and should be replaced with better-quality figures.

3. I feel it can be a good idea to have an efficiency analysis in this paper.

4. A table including different control and algorithms and comparing with the proposed model can be helpful to readers to make a comparison and understand the features of the model.

 

1. In my opinion, the paper is proper and is within the scope of this journal.

2. There are several typo problems and the resolution of Figures 2, 3, and 4 is low and should be replaced with better-quality figures.

3. I feel it can be a good idea to have an efficiency analysis in this paper.

4. A table including different control and algorithms and comparing with the proposed model can be helpful to readers to make a comparison and understand the features of the model.

 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam

We have submitted the response to your valuable comments. Please find the same

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors!

I am familiar with your answers to my questions and suggestions.

The work has been supplemented and finalized, and can be recommended for promotion.

I hope that my second remark will be taken into account in the next study.

I wish you success!

I recommend paying attention to conjugations and sentence endings (throughout the text).
Coordinate the material with a native speaker.