Next Article in Journal
Effectiveness of Training Prescription Guided by Heart Rate Variability Versus Predefined Training for Physiological and Aerobic Performance Improvements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Game Approach to HDR-TS-PV Hybrid Power System Dispatching
Previous Article in Journal
Performance Analysis of Selected Programming Languages in the Context of Supporting Decision-Making Processes for Industry 4.0
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Analysis of the Influence of Terrain Orientation on the Design of PV Facilities with Single-Axis Trackers

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(23), 8531; https://doi.org/10.3390/app10238531
by Francisco J. Gómez-Uceda 1, Isabel M. Moreno-Garcia 2,*, José M. Jiménez-Martínez 3, Rafael López-Luque 4 and Luis M. Fernández-Ahumada 5
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(23), 8531; https://doi.org/10.3390/app10238531
Submission received: 5 November 2020 / Revised: 23 November 2020 / Accepted: 27 November 2020 / Published: 29 November 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript makes a good impression and brings interesting results. However, there are also minor bugs that need to be corrected. In its current form, I cannot support the publication. I would recommend a few changes.

 

  1. The abstract should provide a comprehensive view of the whole article. Remember that the abstract itself should be a small article in terms of content, on the basis of which readers continue to make decisions in full reading. The abstract therefore needs to be better presented. I would also recommend to add specific results.

 

  1. Line 87 - I would avoid a lumpy reference to the literature.

 

  1. Line 117 – The references should be listed according to the numerical order

 

  1. Line 173 – Here is an error: ,,Error! Reference source not found‘‘. Correct it wherever it occurs in the text (lines 247, 251, 267, 310, 313 and so on).

 

  1. In conclusion, I would suggest a comparison of the results obtained by other studies, which would give the reader and the work more seriousness and credit.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper addresses a topic that is and will be of increasing importance as solar PV R&D is in the ascendency. It is therefore very important that your research contains the very latest models that are available. Models that have been much more widely used than, the rather dated, Hay-Davies model that you have chosen to use. That model is the lynch-pin of your work and is therefore a principal factor that will influence your findings and conclusions.

I am afraid I have to recommend to you that you use the more recent, and much more widely used models, e.g. Perez model has been used very widely in the USA and Muneer model was chosen by the European Solar Radiation Atlas published by Ecole de Mines, Paris and used throughout the EU, including Spain. There are a number of Spanish researchers that have used both the Perez and Muneer model as they have become the reference models for a number of works, as mentioned above. A large body of research work is available that will show you the amount of validation work undertaken, including the European Solar Radiation Atlas.

Your work can be brought up to date by including in your analysis the results you obtain by using the Perez and Muneer models. You may then cross -compare the findings from the three models - Hay-Davies and Perez and Muneer models. Otherwise this work will only be of limited application. 

You seem to have picked up the Hay-Davies model from Duffie and Beckman's book. The section on solar radiation in that book needs to be updated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am happy that the required changes have been incorporated within this, improved draft and hence accept the article for publication. The Editor's decision will be final, however.

Back to TopTop