A Multi-Level Fuzzy Evaluation Method for the Reliability of Integrated Energy Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1- Overall, the Abstract section is not giving any information about methodology, results, conclusion, and recommendations as it should be with clear. I suggest the authors to remove generic lines and present the strong statements and novelty of article. The abstract written by qualitative sentences. It is need to modify and rewrite based on the most important quantity results from this research. The abstract should be redesigned. You should avoid using acronyms in the abstract and insert the work's main conclusion.
2- The objectives should be more explicitly stated. The Introduction section must be written on more quality way. The research gap should be delivered on more clear way with directed necessity for the conducted research work.
3- What is the novelty of this work? It is better to improve your contributions which are not so clear to show the advantage of your work.
4- Overall, the discussion part is weak. The Discussion should summarize the manuscript's main finding(s) in the context of the broader scientific literature and address any study limitations or results that conflict with other published work.
Dear Authors, your work is poor. However, I will give you one chance to improve it. I will review it again.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft， the detailed corrections are listed in the cover letter. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Kind regards
Pei He, Yangming Guo, Xiaodong Wang, Shiqi Zhang and Zhihao Zhong
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author
The manuscript has well written and analysed, even though some of the following points added advantages of this manuscript
1. Abstract: does not have objective, method and results
2. Introduction: The introduction does not have a problem statement
3. figure 1: the basic structure has explained the Energy transmission network
4. The introduction is very lengthy, so reduce it
5. The related works are hidden in the introduction. Please separate it and give at least 5 recent references
6. The proposed method is good
7. The methodology algorithm is good, but equation (1) is not properly explained
8. step 6 of the algorithm: how do you adjust the lambda? How the subjective weight has adjusted
9. The proposed method of results is not properly explained
10. The proposed method has to be compared with recent journals
11. The conclusion is good
12. The references are good
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft， the detailed corrections are listed in the cover letter. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Kind regards
Pei He, Yangming Guo, Xiaodong Wang, Shiqi Zhang and Zhihao Zhong
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The research work presented by the authors namely “A multi-level fuzzy evaluation method for the reliability of integrated energy systems” is one I found very interesting. The research was done well; the language and writing style is considerable. However, there seem to be a few things that need to be worked on and rectified. My decision is "Accept after minor revision (corrections to minor methodological errors and text editing)". The following are my reviewer's comments. Please read through it and make the necessary changes to the manuscript. I wish the best of luck to the authors. Thank you.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft， the detailed corrections are listed in the cover letter. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Kind regards
Pei He, Yangming Guo, Xiaodong Wang, Shiqi Zhang and Zhihao Zhong
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you
