Review Reports

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all I would like to congratulate the authors for the work, well written, tested and justified, where the method and the case study are presented in an appropriate way.

- Next I propose you the following improvements:

- Unify the format of the equations, preferably aligned to the center.

- It would be interesting to know the hardware where the different executions of the case study were launched.

- Format the references according to the format of the magazine

- It would improve the bibliographic review since no recent work is cited, it's a little strange that recent work isn't included.

   Ex: Quadrature Current Compensation in Non-Sinusoidal Circuits Using Geometric Algebra and Evolutionary Algorithms. Energies 2019, 12(4), 692; https://doi.org/10.3390/en12040692

Author Response

Please see the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, an optimal reactive power method based on a transfer bee optimizer has been developed. The overall contribution of the paper to the field might be valuable, however, some major revisions should be done to increase the quality of the paper.

Comments and recommendations are as follows:

The contributions of this paper is not clearly described in the Introduction. To improve its quality I would suggest to restructure this section by organizing the state-of-art following a classical structure: Motivation, literature review, aims and contributions of the paper.

Moreover, in the Introduction section the authors properly criticized the methods usually adopted for reactive power optimization since they require information on the overall system with a consequent high computational times. Anyway, in the attempt to overcome this issue, for what is in the reviewer’s knowledge, technical literature suggests to adopt of external equivalents in distribution networks. Please, could you discuss about using these equivalent models and point out why the method proposed in this paper is better than these? What are the main advantages that can give rise from the adoption of this method? What is the key novelty?  

Conclusions should be rewritten in full text instead of bullet points. Moreover, this section should clearly highlight the advantages that it  can expect from this new optimization method in comparison with recent literature, with particular focus with regard to methods based on reduced network model. 

Author Response

Please see the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round  2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper proposes a new method for reactive power optimization (RPO) in a high power system, by means of bioinspired techniques.

Congratulate the authors on a good job.

Author Response

We appreciate the invaluable comments from the reviewer very much.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised paper has been significantly improved and addressed many questions that have been arisen in the first round.

Author Response

We appreciate the invaluable time and comments from the reviewer very much