Development and Investigation of a Synthetic Inertia Algorithm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
· Section ‘Overview of available countermeasures for supporting low conventional system’ should be improved in content and in style. For example, the word ‘authors’ is repeated multiple times all along this section.
· A scheme of the methodology adopted to get the results should be introduced.
· It is not clear why only one of the 5 calculation cases that have been performed to achieve the experimental results has been presented. It should be very useful and interesting for the reader to see the results of the entire experimental campaign carried out by the authors to validate the model.
· The analysis of the results presented in the Figure 11 is not clear and should be improved and presented in a more rigorous way.
· The whole document should be revised by a Native English speaker.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. Please see attached a word file.
BR
Paulius
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors introduce a synthetic inertia algorithm that allows the simulation of the inertia response of a traditional generator to an electrical power system. The authors have also provided a detailed comparative evaluation of the algorithm’s accuracy with other generator results in order to quantify its drawbacks and benefits. Additionally, the authors have determined several types of errors in order to capture the accuracy of the proposed synthetic energy algorithm. The manuscript is overall well written and easy to follow and the authors have well thought out their main contributions. The provided theoretical analysis is concrete, complete, and correct and the authors have provided all the intermediate steps in order to enable the average reader to easily follow it. Furthermore, the provided numerical results are rich in order to show the pure operation and the performance of the proposed framework. The authors are encouraged to consider the following suggestions provided by the reviewer in order to improve the scientific depth of their manuscript, as well as they need to address the following comments in order to improve the quality of presentation of their manuscript. Initially, in Section 1, where the motivation of the proposed framework has been discussed, the authors need to discuss several existing approaches that are targeting towards a green society, such as Prosumer-Centric Self-Sustained Smart Grid Systems, doi: 10.1109/JSYST.2022.3156877, by implementing intelligent demand response management schemes within the electricity sector. The provided related work needs to be substantially improved in order to capture the state-of-the-art and highlight the main research gaps that the authors try to address. Furthermore, the authors need to include an additional section providing the implementation cost of the proposed synthetic inertia algorithm in order to be implemented within a realistic environment. Currently, it seems that the authors have provided only simulation based results without really discussing the realistic implementation costs of the proposed framework. Furthermore, it would be highly appreciated if the authors could provide a comparative evaluation of the proposed scheme to the state-of-the-art in order to better quantify the drawbacks and benefits of the proposed framework. Finally, the overall manuscript needs to be checked for typos, syntax, and grammar errors in order to improve the quality of its presentation.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. Please see attached a word file.
BR
Paulius
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1) Acronyms need to be spelled out first in the text, tables, and figures. For example, PSSE (ln 9) needs to be defined first.
2) Check for section numbers. Line 58 and 133 have the same section numbers.
3) Most papers reviewed are over 5 years old; more recent papers should be considered.
4) Improve the image quality and similarly remove the marking in the outer layer of figure 6 b.
5) If possible, draw a flowchart for the algorithm which is mentioned in the manuscript for better understanding.
6) In line 225 “Based on the methodology presented in article No. 2 of this paper”. What is that article no. 2 represents about?
7) The figure order is wrong. Figure 4 – 8 is cited before figure 3.
8) For Figure 7 and 8, use more explanations so that the novelty of your work can be seen. The main part of your work is this part, which the reader should understand by reading this part.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments. Please see attached a word file.
BR
Paulius
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for taking into consideration my suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed in detail the reviewers' comments. This reviewer has no further concerns regarding this paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
the paper is improved, it may be published in this journal in its present form
