Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors revised the article very carefully and answered all the queries raised. It can be accepted in its current form

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no further comment about this manuscript for the publication.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have a couple of comments for this manuscript.

 

1) The authors prepared three commercial MOV devices and compared their characteristics. From this sense, this manuscript looks like an expanded datasheet rather than a scientific work. Please discuss more thoroughly what scientific advance was achieved by this manuscript despite all the commercial products.

 

2) Not only box plots of QTOT but also the detailed measurement data (V-I, t-I etc.) should be included in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The discussion presented in this article is new and the presented results are correct, but the language should be improved. The grammatical part also having some mistakes and it should be corrected.

Some critical points:

1. After finishing every equations, the authors should be full stops or commas, because nowhere I found
2. References should follow a common writing method, but the authors not following like that
3. %\Delta notations are used, it is a symbol or percentage?
4. For clarity, the authors can use standard symbols for easy reading

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf