Prevention and Detection of Electricity Theft of Distribution Network
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comments
This manuscript presents a study regarding Prevention and Detection of Electricity Theft of Distribution Network in Pakistan.
In my opinion, this study can be considered for publication, but the manuscript needs to be thoroughly revised and Authors should check the following comments for addressing mentioned issues.
Detailed Comments
1) Extensive editing of English language and style required
The language must be considerably improved throughout the text: The manuscript presents many flaws such as unnecessary repetition of words, verbal incongruity, and occasional mistakes. In general, the paper would benefit from editing by a professional native English speaker or an editing language service.
2) In the text of the work, some words are capitalized many times - completely unnecessarily.
3) Authors repeatedly misquote literature, eg. " economies. [2] "; "be tampered with[3]." ; is around 8% [4], [5]. Please review the entire work in this respect and remove errors.
4) The name of the chapter 2. Literature - seems to me inaccurate, maybe better 2. Literature review?
5) Fig 1. Electricity consumption[16] - Please give a more detailed description; the authors did not quote Figure in the text of the work
6) Lines 173-181: The authors have included a piece of reviews in the work - the comments mentioned are the most sensible, so please use them in your work obligatorily
7) Chapter 2: A short paragraph introducing the problem statement and actions taken should be included at the end of this section. The authors should link the state of the art analysis to their study goals, identifying the knowledge gaps in literature. The authors are strongly encouraged to more clearly explain the importance of this work in relation to the current state of the art, as well as to point out which is the substantial contribution of this paper. The authors are advised to reason both the relevance and novelty introduced by their study
8) All figures and tables should be quoted in the text of the work!
9) Fig 2. - please create your own tables and not insert graphics
10) Fig 5. Circuit Proteus diagram. - please create a clearer graphic
Author Response
according to your comments i did all comments
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. What are the practical implications about this work like applications?
2. What was the limiting requirements such combinations considered here?
3. Abstract only gives a descriptive detail of the work, authors do need to carefully present the abstract and try to answer the questions in abstract such as background, methods, significant findings.
4. Please add a section (small) by giving a summery of previous important on the subject and then highlight your works novelty in comparison for better positioning your work.
5. Please don’t use bulk citations in group. Discuss each references separately at the relevant place in the manuscript.
6. Literature is not strong enough; it has missed recent and important studies. Similar studies are given in literature
7. Figures are not of high quality and must be improved in resolution. Author should look into the resolution requirements of the journal and also try to use some professional software to draw figures. Generally, TIF format figures are good quality. Some symbols are also missed in the figures, please double verify such things.
8. Language needs to be improved, as you would see in the manuscript.
9. In terms of results and discussion, this is more like explaining the results that changing one parameter effects on the other parameter, I think the required thing is to provide some scientific insight into the phenomenon that what are the possible physical reasons for such trends? Please try to focus on these aspects.
10. Please double check the nomenclature for the order and missing symbols.
11. Please carefully check for all references structure and if they are cited in the text?
12. Pease double check the citing of figures and tables in the text.
Author Response
according to your comments i did my comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors presented an interesting case study targeting a specific geographic location. The cause and some naive solutions for the problem of electricity theft are provided. Some suggestions to further the quality of this paper are as follows:
1- Authors presented a neural networks-based solution. The recent work using neural networks in this domain must be covered in the literature survey.
2- The gaps in the literature and contributions of this work must be highlighted.
3- The draft must be proofread using some professional services to improve the English language. Some findings are as below:
Line 40: …and people have existed.
Line 61: I in is
Consistency: use 3rd or 3rd
Line 76: wither
Line 80: 13.5?
Line 85: paper,s
Line 93, 94: GMM? LSDV?PESCO? Synonyms should be mentioned the first time they are used in the text.
Fig 1: Axis labels?
Line 124: vague and foolproof?
Line 173-181 seems irrelevant. Instead, the main contributions of the work should be highlighted.
Fig2: Quality can be improved by replacing the image with a table.
Line 303: I can…?
Line332 Tampering...Tempering?
Line354…heading position
Line 366, hard is used…??
Line 387 lack of..?
Line 388 house consumption in GJ? Shouldn’t it be in kwh?
The use of the first capital letters for different words should be revised inside a sentence.
Line 405..citation should be at the end of the sentence.
Thank you.
Author Response
According to your comments i did all comments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Work to be improved. Please make the changes I wrote about in an earlier review. Please do it honestly!!!
In the current version, the work is rejectable and requires a lot of work to be published!!!
Other comments:
1) The authors of the paper did not refer point by point to my comments and other reviewers in the corrected version in a separate file. The statement "according to your comments and did my comments." - it is not enough!!!
2) There are still smaller and larger errors in the work, suggesting that the author of the work made superficial changes to the so-called unhooking - at this level, it's unacceptable (examples from the first pages: over 22 years[11]. ; [5], [10]–[14]. ; 1% to 15%[8]. ; of 15 ?? ? ; IoT(internet of things); Electricity[1]. ; the State or Government.
3) Extensive editing of English language and style required - only cosmetic changes were made in the revised version!!!
The language must be considerably improved throughout the text: The manuscript presents many flaws such as unnecessary repetition of words, verbal incongruity, and occasional mistakes. In general, the paper would benefit from editing by a professional native English speaker or an editing language service.
4) Please don’t use bulk citations in group. Discuss each references separately at the relevant place in the manuscript. - this remark has not been made
5) In the text of the work, some words are capitalized many times - completely unnecessarily. - this remark has not been made
6) Figures are not of high quality and must be improved in resolution. Author should look into the resolution requirements of the journal and also try to use some professional software to draw figures.
7) Fig 2. Case Study of Theft in 2010[15]. TABLE 1. Case study of theft in 2010 [15]. Table 1. Line Losses 2020. - Please correct
Author Response
i have done all the comments in the below file and also highlighted the demand comments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
accepted
Author Response
i have done the comments point by point in the below file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors of the revised version of the manuscript took into account all my comments. The modifications introduced in the article have been properly and reliably justified by the authors. The article is suitable for publication in the journal as it stands.
