Next Article in Journal
Long-Term Marine Environment Exposure Effect on Butt-Welded Shipbuilding Steel
Next Article in Special Issue
Experimental Study of a Gurney Flap on a Pitching Wind Turbine Airfoil under Turbulent Flow Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
Flow Field Measurement of Laboratory-Scaled Cross-Flow Hydrokinetic Turbines: Part I—The Near-Wake of a Single Turbine
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Comparative Study of Metaheuristic Algorithms for Wave Energy Converter Power Take-Off Optimisation: A Case Study for Eastern Australia

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9(5), 490; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9050490
by Erfan Amini 1, Danial Golbaz 1, Rojin Asadi 1, Mahdieh Nasiri 2, Oğuzhan Ceylan 3, Meysam Majidi Nezhad 4 and Mehdi Neshat 5,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9(5), 490; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9050490
Submission received: 29 March 2021 / Revised: 14 April 2021 / Accepted: 27 April 2021 / Published: 1 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Marine Renewable Energy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper seems to require minor revisions.

Please check the following and make corrections under the responsibility of the author.

  •   The use of (16) in line 77 is not clear.

It needs to be deleted because it is considered unnecessary.  

  •  Shouldn't "Figure 5" mentioned in lines 171 and 174 be described as "Figure 3"?
    The author should check the contents and make appropriate corrections.  

Author Response

Authors' response:

We appreciate the reviewer for taking the time to look over this study in detail. The mentioned number in line 77 is removed. Furthermore, "Figure 5" is replaced with "Figure 3" in the text, as we acknowledge the reviewer's comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Colors on the curves in fig.5 should follow colors used in other figures.

Author Response

Authors' response:

We greatly appreciate the reviewer for taking the time to review the paper. The colours in Figure 5 are replaced with those which are aligned with Figure3.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is good: concise and detailed. It describes well the methodology and the characteristics of the adopted model. The results are supported by the data. The overall contribution of the article is interesting for this journal readership. I suggest accepting the article. There is just one minor remark to be amended:

Line 137: “however” should be “However”.

Back to TopTop