Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is a review paper that surveys dual inverter topologies and modulation strategies applied to open-end winding induction motor (OEWIM) systems. It categorizes existing configurations, discusses modulation methods such as SPWM, SVPWM, and hybrid PWM, and summarizes industrial applications including electric vehicles, renewable energy systems, and fault-tolerant drives. The authors also attempt to highlight the advantages, technical challenges, and future research directions of dual inverter systems. However, the paper remains primarily descriptive, lacking both analytical depth and methodological rigor. The presentation, language, and figure quality fall below the standard expected for a peer reviewed journal publication.

Comment 1:

This paper reads more like a literature review report as part of student assginment. It's listing many references and provides category tables, but it lacks of clear comparative analysis of each topology and modulation strategy in terms of its performacne metrics.

Comment 2:

Many figures appear to be screenshots with unclear resolutino and unaligned text. For a proper submission of scientific journal, please make sure all figures are submitted with high resolution, text on figure should have same size and fonts as the main text.

Comment 3:

Figures 4 and 5 simply show the number of papers published in different journals and years without providing any analytical or technical insight. Such bibliometric plots do not contribute to understanding the topology or modulation strategy of dual inverters.

Comment 4:

Although the paper includes over 100 references, many are not well integrated into the discussion. Some citations appear outdated or irrelevant. Important benchmark works on dual inverter SVPWM or predictive control are not critically reviewed. Cross-check all references for completeness, remove non-relevant sources, and link each citation with specific insights in the text.

Comment 5:

The “Materials and Methods” section lacks a defined review methodology. There are no inclusion/exclusion criteria, keyword search strategy, or time range justification. Without these elements, the claimed “systematic review” cannot be considered scientifically valid.

Comment 6:

The discussion section does not provide any technical interpretation or insight. The conclusions merely restate general advantages of dual inverters without presenting clear findings, research gaps, or future directions.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comprehensive and well-structured review of dual inverter topologies and associated modulation strategies. The topic is timely and relevant, addressing important developments in industrial applications, electric vehicles, and renewable energy systems. The paper demonstrates a good understanding of the state of the art and provides useful classification tables and figures that contribute to clarity.
However, some aspects could be improved to enhance readability and scientific rigor:

1.  Please provide more details about the article selection criteria used in your systematic review, including search terms, inclusion/exclusion parameters, and the total number of articles initially screened versus those retained for analysis.

2. The English is generally understandable, some sections contain long or repetitive sentences. A light grammatical and stylistic revision would improve flow and precision (e.g., simplifying transitions and ensuring consistent verb tenses).

3. All visuals are relevant, but ensure that captions are self-contained (i.e., they should briefly describe what the figure or table illustrates without requiring the reader to refer to the main text).

4. The review could benefit from a slightly more analytical tone, especially in the Discussion section. For instance, highlight specific research gaps, limitations of current topologies, or open challenges in modulation control for OEWIM systems.

5. This section of future trends is valuable but could be expanded with a clearer link between identified gaps and proposed future directions, such as the integration of AI-based control or predictive algorithms.

Overall, this is a solid and informative review that makes a useful contribution to the literature on power electronics. With minor revisions focused on language polishing and methodological transparency, it should be suitable for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper comprehensively surveys industrial dual inverter systems, detailing their topologies and modulation strategies. Based on a synthesis of over 100 articles (2015-2025), it confirms that dual inverters dramatically improve energy efficiency, fault tolerance, harmonic performance, and DC bus utilization. The review classifies the literature by structure, modulation type, and application (e.g., EVs, renewable energy) and analyzes performance indices such as THD. Finally, it highlights the future trend of integrating AI/machine learning for real-time control. There are some weaknesses in this paper authors must address. Some of these weaknesses are:

1- The study lacked a clearly defined research objective or hypothesis. Example 1: Page 1, lines 16–24: The abstract lists benefits but does not define a specific research question. Example 2: Page 3, lines 57–65: The aim is stated broadly (“comprehensive review”) without measurable criteria.

2- The methodology description given required sufficient detail and clarity. Example 1: Page 4, lines 77–84: The “systematic methodology” is claimed but lacks selection and exclusion criteria. Example 2: Page 5, lines 98–107: No explanation of validation or bias control in the dataset of 110 articles.

3- The paper contained inconsistent labelling and descriptions for its figures. Example 1: Page 4, Figure 3: The caption does not match the content—it repeats “Publishers that have published articles…” twice. Example 2: Page 5, Figure 4: The figure text duplicates Figure 3 content, leading to confusion.

4- The review failed to provide a sufficiently critical evaluation of the included studies. Example 1: Page 6, lines 114–123: Summarizes advantages of dual inverters but does not compare conflicting findings. Example 2: Page 10, lines 220–227: Lists challenges generally without linking them to specific studies.

5- Repetitive content between sections. Example 1: Pages 8–9, lines 165–195: Description of inverter structure repeats what was already covered on pages 2–3. Example 2: Page 14, lines 280–289: Reiterates discussion from results section about reliability.

6- The figures and tables were not properly referenced within the text. Example 1: Figure 6 (page 7) and Figure 9 (page 8) are not explicitly cited in the discussion paragraphs. Example 2: Table 5 (page 10) is introduced without contextual interpretation of results.

7- The paper included only a limited discussion regarding the implications of the control algorithms. Example: Page 9, lines 205–213: Mentions phase shift but lacks numerical examples or simulation validation.

8- The conclusions do not present original insights or forward-looking perspectives. Example 1: Page 15, lines 305–317: Restates known advantages of dual inverters without novel perspectives. Example 2: Page 15, lines 317–319: The final sentence is generic (“strategic alternative…”) without a concrete recommendation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- A seperate section should be added to discuss the operation and control of the convnetional dual inverteres and the possible point that future publication should focus on to obtain improved perfomance.

2- The sutability of dual inverter topologies in renewable energy and grid integeration should be discuused.

3-The trend of publishing a dual inverters is decreasing as seen from figure 5. Authos are asked to comapre dual inverteres with new topologies such as Hybrid three-level/Two-level inverter, and New H10 inverters focusing on number of semicondustors benchmarkimng simplication of control, NPV balncing and leakage and CMV reduction. 

4- Introduction should be rewritten to show imposrtance of the dual convertere its advangtage comapred to other inverter topologiues and the applicaion which can be served as a best candidate.

5- It is recommnded to add some results which show the feature of these inverter comapred to convntional converteres. in term of current, common mode voltage phase voltage and their FFT.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of paper has been improved from this revision. No further comment from here.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comments