Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well written in general and addresses a relevant research topic. Nvertheless, the following remarks should be considered before publication in a scientific journal:

-        There are several typing and grammar errors, e.g., the sentence in line 75-77 misses a subject. The sentence in line 103-104 should be revised in view of the meaning. Line 121: “Vehicle” instead of “vehicle”, Line 124: “Fig. 1©” instead of “Fig. 1(a)”, etc.

-        All parameters should be explained and / or listed in a table of parameters, e.g., some parameters of equation (1) are not mentioned.

-        Figure 1 (c) shows a serial hybrid configuration, but no possibility to charge the battery from external electric power sources. In this way, it remains unclear, if the battery can be charged at the grid, which would be required in case of a “range extender vehicle”. Otherwise (as shown in Figure 1 (c), it is just a serial hybrid configuration. This aspect should be clarified and undoubtedly defined in the paper.

-        It remains unclear, how and to which extend the AI-supported data is verified and evaluated in view of plausibility.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

see comments above.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We sincerely appreciate the insightful and constructive comments provided by the reviewers. In the subsequent sections, we meticulously present our responses to each point raised in the reviewers' comments. In the revised paper, modifications have been highlighted in red to enhance clarity. We trust that the implemented changes effectively address the issues raised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

please find attached the referee report for your paper.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some typos have been detected. An editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the insightful and constructive comments provided by the reviewers. In the subsequent sections, we meticulously present our responses to each point raised in the reviewers' comments. In the revised paper, modifications have been highlighted in red to enhance clarity. We trust that the implemented changes effectively address the issues raised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thanks for your corrections and modifications. They brought added value to the paper.

Best regards