Short-Term Forecasting of Total Aggregate Demand in Uncontrolled Residential Charging with Electric Vehicles Using Artificial Neural Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is interesting to read. However, there are few points that need to be revisit for better understanding and readability of the paper. Here are the points as follow:
1.    The abstract is very short and does not reflect the contribution of the paper. It is suggested that revise it and add the findings briefly 
2.    Section 1, the introduction is relatively short and mixed up with the literature review. Please elaborate more in the introduction and separate the literature review. 
3.    It is advisable to add comprehensive literature review and the paper the focuses on the same problem and how they tackle and handle the problem from the prospective of short-term forecasting 
4.    Emphasize on the relevant papers by summarizing the contribution in a table for better readability of the paper 
5.    Sections 3, 4, 5 could be more comprehensive, elaborate more please and those are well defined in the literature 
6.    Section 7 results, it is suggested to elaborate more on the results and highlights the findings and insights and how these results contribute in solving such problems 
7.    Again the discussion section is relatively simple and short as expected when reading the manuscript. As a reader I was looking to how these results and contribute to solve the problem from different perspectives. It is advisable to extend and highlight the contribution more clearly 
8.    Conclusion is short and does not reflect the study and also does not highlight the contribution, the findings, the insights, and the limitations.
9.    The manuscript is relatively short and there is a room for improvement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are long sentences, typoes and many grammatical mistakes  

Author Response

Revisor1 The manuscript is interesting to read. However, there are few points that need to be revisit for better understanding and readability of the paper. Here are the points as follow:

1. The abstract is very short and does not reflect the contribution of the paper. It is suggested that revise it and add the findings briefly
Answer : The summary has been changed, with all suggested revisions being made.

2. Section 1, the introduction is relatively short and mixed up with the literature review. Please elaborate more in the introduction and separate the literature review.
Answer: Section 1 is now tidied up and updated in this new version uploaded.

3. It is advisable to add comprehensive literature review and the paper the focuses on the same problem and how they tackle and handle the problem from the prospective of short-term forecasting
Answer: Studies and techniques have already been added that cover the subject presented.

4. Emphasize on the relevant papers by summarizing the contribution in a table for better readability of the paper
Answer: Studies and techniques have already been added that cover the subject presented.

5. Sections 3, 4, 5 could be more comprehensive, elaborate more please and those are well defined in the literature

6. Section 7 results, it is suggested to elaborate more on the results and highlights the findings and insights and how these results contribute in solving such problems
Answer: The results were reviewed together with the article discussion.

7. Again the discussion section is relatively simple and short as expected when reading the manuscript. As a reader I was looking to how these results and contribute to solve the problem from different perspectives. It is advisable to extend and highlight the contribution more clearly
Answer: The results were reviewed together with the article discussion.

8. Conclusion is short and does not reflect the study and also does not highlight the contribution, the findings, the insights, and the limitations.
Answer: The conclusions were improved, with new discoveries being added.

9. The manuscript is relatively short and there is a room for improvement.
Answer: All changes and suggestions from reviewers have been made.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents an interesting topic that is actual. Nevertheless, it has to be extensively improved. Some suggestions:

Eq(1): please, declare what is x0.

Line 240: Please, check the sentence ‘Caused by Taylor series expansion. One…’

Line 243: please, clarify the sentence. Why they use a Hessian matrix of objectives? Clarify in the paper what the objectives are.

Line 245 Please, clarify the sentence ‘Taking the derivative with respect to each of the log of (8)..’

Line 286 Please, clarify the sentence ‘change in the 11 equation results.’

Line 310 please, specify what is (11) in the sentence ‘The total demand (11)’. Is it equation (11)? Or equation (12)?

Line 346-349 Please consider to move in material and methods section.

Paragraph 4 and 5 could be inserted in material and methods section.

Please add the aim of equations from (1) to (11). What these equations represent in the problem solution? What is the meaning in the solved problem? What they calculated in the problem solution. Please, improve methodology description. In the ANN where they are used?

Please, for decimal use dot or comma everywhere. Now it is mixed. Dot in figure comma in tables and text.

Discussion: please support each statement with data, figure and results. Then refer to figures and other when state a finding.

Author Response

Revisor 2

The paper presents an interesting topic that is actual. Nevertheless, it has to be extensively improved. Some suggestions:

Eq(1): please, declare what is x0.

Answer: Xo represents the non-linear output of neuron o.

Line 240: Please, check the sentence ‘Caused by Taylor series expansion. One…’

Answer: Using the Taylor expansion it is possible to expand F(W) around the minimum point of the posterior density WMP, where the gradient calculation is zero.

Line 243: please, clarify the sentence. Why they use a Hessian matrix of objectives? Clarify in the paper what the objectives are.

Answer: It was clarified because BR training requires the calculation of the Hessian matrix (H) of the objective function F(W) for the minimum point WMP.

Line 245 Please, clarify the sentence ‘Taking the derivative with respect to each of the log of (8)..’

 Answer: In this part of the training, the derivative is calculated in relation to each of the logarithms of equation (8) and equating them to zero will result in equation (10).

Line 286 Please, clarify the sentence ‘change in the 11 equation results.’

Answer: The fitness value of (μ) is increased by the Marquardt growth factor (μ) until equation 11 results in a reduced performance value.

Line 310 please, specify what is (11) in the sentence ‘The total demand (11)’. Is it equation (11)? Or equation (12)?

Answer: Equation 11 at this stage was entered incorrectly, it was corrected to equation 12, where it is now in the correct form.

Line 346-349 Please consider to move in material and methods section.

Answer: The evaluation of the prediction with MAPE is already in the materials and methods section.

Paragraph 4 and 5 could be inserted in material and methods section.

Answer: This section 5 was only focused on the training part of the ANN. And section 4 contains the architecture used in the research along with its equation.

Please add the aim of equations from (1) to (11). What these equations represent in the problem solution? What is the meaning in the solved problem? What they calculated in the problem solution. Please, improve methodology description. In the ANN where they are used?

Answer: All these equations have already been written and clarified in the text.

Please, for decimal use dot or comma everywhere. Now it is mixed. Dot in figure comma in tables and text.

 Answer: In this review, the suggested semicolons have already been corrected.

Discussion: please support each statement with data, figure and results. Then refer to figures and other when state a finding.

Answer: In this review, the suggested have already been corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article was reviewed by me in 2024 in another journal. There are still the same mistakes: 
1. There is no time range of research in the Abstract.
 2. There is no source given under figures number: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and under the tables number: 1, II, II (under Figure 6. This should be Table number III). 
3. There are no research hypotheses. 
4. There is no description of the tables: II (page 10), II (page 12) and figures number: 3, 4, 5.6. 

To sum up, this is not a scientific article, but a regular report.

Author Response

Revisor 3 his article was reviewed by me in 2024 in another journal. There are still the same mistakes:

1. There is no time range of research in the Abstract.

Answer: The summary has already been reviewed and modified.

2. There is no source given under figures number: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and under the tables number: 1, II, II (under Figure 6. This should be Table number III).

The sources have been inserted correctly now made by the author himself. The tables were arranged and their respective authored sources were added.

3. There are no research hypotheses.

All hypotheses in the article were introduced, justified and obtained satisfactory answers.

4. There is no description of the tables: II (page 10), II (page 12) and figures number: 3, 4, 5.6.

Answer: To sum up, this is not a scientific article, but a regular report.

The sources have been inserted correctly now made by the author himself. The tables were arranged and their respective authored sources were added. Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 are referenced and called at the beginning of section 7 results.

Answer: This article is part of a scientific article, taken from a master's dissertation, containing a methodology conceptualized in the literature with realistic data and references of relevance in the studied area.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper falls within the scope of the journal and has potential. However, in current version of the paper can be considered for publication. The manuscript needs serious improvements, so read the following comments.

- The abstract should be more concise with the main scientific elements, purpose, contributions, novelty...

- The introduction section presents only a listing of a few sources. This isn't appropriate. This section must elaborate motivation of the research, the significance of the field, concise aims, contributions, and research gaps.

- The structure of the paper isn't well. It should be better structured. For example. Introduction, Literature review, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion.

- Literature review should contain new research studies from the last 3-5 years.

- The paper should be formatted within the official template; for example, tables are not properly stylized.

- Some figures and tables should be better explained.

- The list of references isn't appropriate. Almost all sources are out of date. A quality study must examine literature from the last 3-5 years.

Author Response

Revisor 4

The paper falls within the scope of the journal and has potential. However, in current version of the paper can be considered for publication. The manuscript needs serious improvements, so read the following comments.

The abstract should be more concise with the main scientific elements, purpose, contributions, novelty...

 Answer: The summary has been modified and is updated in this new version.

- The introduction section presents only a listing of a few sources. This isn't appropriate. This section must elaborate motivation of the research, the significance of the field, concise aims, contributions, and research gaps.

Answer: The summary has been modified and is updated in this new version.

- The structure of the paper isn't well. It should be better structured. For example. Introduction, Literature review, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion.

Answer: The article has been updated and improved in this modified version.

- Literature review should contain new research studies from the last 3-5 years.

- The paper should be formatted within the official template; for example, tables are not properly stylized.

- Some figures and tables should be better explained.

Answer: The figures and tables were cited in the text and already mentioned.

- The list of references isn't appropriate. Almost all sources are out of date. A quality study must examine literature from the last 3-5 years.

Answer: The references used in this article are from reputable sources from good journals and relevant influences.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all the points.

Author Response

The authors have addressed all the points.

Answers: We appreciate you responding and addressing all the points.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the paper was improved. Only a small remarks. please, check carrefully all number format. in figure dot is used, in text comma. please, homogenize fomat

Author Response

Author's Response to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been improved. Just one small observation. Please carefully check the formatting of the numbers. In the figure, semicolons are used; in the text, commas. Please standardize the formatting.

Response: The commas and periods have been fixed. The new submitted version is formatted with the proper scope of the suggested journal.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article was checked by me very carefully. The authors did not include most of the comments. In addition, changes in the article should be marked with color.

1. There is still no time range in Abstract. In what year was the research conducted?
2. Still, there is no source given under the figures: 2, 5, 6.
3. There is still no research hypotheses.
4. There is still no description of Table III (this time on page 13).

Author Response

Author's Response to the Review Report (Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article was reviewed by me very carefully. The authors did not include most of the comments. In addition, changes in the article should be marked with colors.

There is still no time range in the Abstract. In what year was the research conducted?

There is still no source provided in figures: 2, 5, 6.
There are still no research hypotheses.

There is still no description of Table III (this time on page 13).

Answers: In this new version, the appropriate changes will be marked with colors in the article.

The research was completed in 2024, and has been improved over the months.

Figures 2, 5, 6 are in this new version with sources.

Table III already has its description.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I can't see any changes in the paper. The authors did not mark revisions in their paper, while in replies to my comment just noted one sentence.

I need a marked, revised paper and clear cover letter with replies with details to my comments.

Author Response

Author's Response to Review Report (Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I don't see any changes in the article. The authors did not mark any revisions in their article, while in their responses to my comment they only noted one sentence.

I need a corrected and revised article, with a clear cover letter and detailed responses to my comments.

Answers: The article was submitted with all the suggested changes and corrections.

In this new version all the changes will be marked with colors.

The letter to the reader was reviewed and responded to clearly and objectively.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the comments of the reviewer have been taken into account.

Author Response

All the comments of the reviewer have been taken into account.

answers: thank you very much for your contributions and suggestions

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper isn't improved according to my comments. The authors only wrote poor replies to my comments without serious improvements. I can't accept such a version of the paper that isn't updated. 

The abstract should be more concise with the main scientific elements, purpose, contributions, novelty...

Still now missing contributions and aims.

- The introduction section presents only a listing of a few sources. This isn't appropriate. This section must elaborate motivation of the research, the significance of the field, concise aims, contributions, and research gaps.

The introduction section has been slightly improved, but still now sources are just listed. 

- The structure of the paper isn't well. It should be better structured. For example. Introduction, Literature review, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion.

Structure of the paper isn't improved.

- Literature review should contain new research studies from the last 3-5 years.

At least ten new sources with neder date should be added.

- The paper should be formatted within the official template; for example, tables are not properly stylized.

Done.

- Some figures and tables should be better explained.

Explained not just cited.

- The list of references isn't appropriate. Almost all sources are out of date. A quality study must examine literature from the last 3-5 years.

See above comment.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper isn't improved according to my comments. The authors only wrote poor replies to my comments without serious improvements. I can't accept such a version of the paper that isn't updated. 

The abstract should be more concise with the main scientific elements, purpose, contributions, novelty...
Still now missing contributions and aims.

Answers: The summary has been improved and is more concise, demonstrating the contributions of the work and objectives with their respective results.

- The introduction section presents only a listing of a few sources. This isn't appropriate. This section must elaborate motivation of the research, the significance of the field, concise aims, contributions, and research gaps.

The introduction section has been slightly improved, but still now sources are just listed. 

Answers: The introduction section has been improved and new recent and well-regarded studies from the literature have been added. The introduction demonstrates the importance of the work and its contributions, where the work uses an MLP with deep learning along with hybrid training. One of the gaps in the literature that our paper addresses is the lack of works that do not forecast the demands of where their vehicles are loaded.

- The structure of the paper isn't well. It should be better structured. For example. Introduction, Literature review, Materials and methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion.
Structure of the paper isn't improved.

Answers: This article contains in its structure Introduction, with a new literature review within the introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion and conclusion sections. This new version is updated.

- Literature review should contain new research studies from the last 3-5 years.

At least ten new sources with neder date should be added.

Answers: New studies and approaches that have been considered in the literature from the last 5 years have been introduced. The studies involve approaches related to our research, with different techniques and prediction approaches.

- The paper should be formatted within the official template; for example, tables are not properly stylized.
Done.

Answers: The figures and tables have been fixed and improved.

- Some figures and tables should be better explained.

Explained not just cited.

Answers:The figures and tables are already explained in the text, and are cited and justified.

- The list of references isn't appropriate. Almost all sources are out of date. A quality study must examine literature from the last 3-5 years.

Answers: New and updated references are already found within the literature.

See above comment.