Examining the Optimal Use of WBG Devices in Induction Cookers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a design study comparing the performance of WBG switches to classic IGBTs in induction cooking. While the scope is relevant and the results are promising, the paper content is too lengthy and the results are not clearly presented. I suggest a major revision of the paper structure where:

- Cutting on introductive sections and explanations about technology and methods that are not the direct scope of the paper, such as the explanation/pictures of a semiconductor module. Use meaningful references instead.

- The paper is way too long given the scope. Just stick to the comparative study with clear methodology, significant tables, figures, and results.

- The plots and graphs are hardly readable due to low-resolution images and extremely small font size, please use vector graphics and appropriate size.

- when including thermal images you must include a color chart and spot measurements of temperature, otherwise these are useless for the reader to understand.

- there are plenty of missing and wrong figure labels and references, please fix these.

- in general, avoid long redundant explanations and premises that are not really catchy for the reader. Summarize the salient and significant points of your research.

English needs to be revised:

- please understand the importance of using articles (the, a, an) when necessary in the sentence. Some sections (like 2 for example) are quite hard to understand overall. Use subsections or item lists for clarity.

- check periods with dead endings or unclear phrasing, there are many.

- avoid qualitative language and stick to technical quantitative language and comparison.

Author Response

Dear Madam/Sir,

We have rearranged our work according to your valuable suggestions. The file containing our answers to your suggestions is attached. The additions made are shown in yellow. Thank you very much.

Best Regards

Ahmet ERKEN

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the review report below. Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

15. English needs to be improved. 

Author Response

Dear Madam/Sir,

We have rearranged our work according to your valuable suggestions. The file containing our answers to your suggestions is attached. The additions made are shown in yellow. Thank you very much.

Best Regards

Ahmet ERKEN

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All previous comments have been properly addressed.

Author Response

Dear Madam/Sir,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript.

Best Regards

Ahmet ERKEN

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has improved greatly, but it still lacks some minor modifications to make it suitable for publication in this journal, as explained below:

1. After deleting a large number of references, the sequence of references must be rearranged again, as we notice on the second page that the reference number jumps from number [4] to number [32]. The references must be re-sequenced in order throughout the research.

2. The objectives of the current work are still unclear. It is recommended to write them in the form of short points and insert the following phrase before the points, which are (The objectives of this research can be summarized as follows:  )

3. In the subtitle of Figure 5, (c) and (d) must be replaced with (a) and (b), respectively. because Figure 5 has been separated into two figures, and each figure contains two images. One of the figures preceding Figure 5 has also been deleted.

Author Response

Dear Madam/Sir,

We have rearranged our work according to your valuable suggestions. The file containing our answers to your suggestions is attached. The additions made are shown in green. Thank you very much.

Best Regards

Ahmet ERKEN

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf