System Integrity Protection Schemes: Naming Conventions and the Need for Standardization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Decision: Major Revision

1. The “Abstract” section can be made much more impressive by highlighting your contributions. The contribution of the study should be explained simply and clearly.
2. Introduction Section: The current challenges are not crystal clearly mentioned/very limited in the introduction section. I suggest adding a dedicated paragraph about the current challenges in this area followed by the authors’ contribution to overcoming those challenges.
3. More suitable keywords should be selected.
4. The paper structure is missing.
5. The contributions of this research in the current manuscript are not clear. I strongly recommended improving and adding built-wise contributions in the manuscript. The authors can follow the introduction section for writing contributions of the article, for assistance: “DOI: 10.3390/s21175892” and cite this regard.
6. In addition, the authors must provide a sufficient critical review of the literature to indicate the drawbacks of existing approaches and then define the main focus of the research direction. How did those previous studies perform? Specifically, what methodology did they use? Which problem still requires to be solved? Why is the proposed approach suitable for solving the critical problem? Readers need more positive reviews of the literature to indicate the state-of-the-art development.
7. In Section 3, the authors must introduce their proposed research framework more effectively. For example, the authors could consider some essential brief explanation compared to the text with a total research flowchart or framework diagram for each proposed algorithm to indicate how these employed systems are working to receive the experimental results. It is not easy to understand how the proposed approaches work.
8. The readability and presentation of the study should be further improved. The paper suffers from language problems.
9. Section Conclusion - Authors are suggested to include in the conclusion section the real actual results for the best performance of their proposed methods in comparison to other methods to highlight and justify the advantages of their proposed methods.
10. What is the main difficulty when applying the proposed method? The authors should clearly state the limitations of the proposed method in practical applications and should be mentioned in the article conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Bit confused as to the main contribution of the paper. Would help if the authors make it clearer (put the classification in a table for instance)
2. Not quite convinced on the idea that standardization is needed across countries, or power systems. The authors state "The conclusions of this work clearly highlight the need for standardization, as several terms used today are sources for misinterpretation". What misinterpretation?
3. Practically, what happens if there is no standardization? Will power system be less reliable, resilient? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

In this article, Stefan et al. classify System Integrity Protection Schemes (SIPS) and provide an overview from both research and practical implementation perspectives.  At present, the energy transition has brought unprecedented challenges to the power grid.  Industry standardization is urgently needed to improve stability and security.  Therefore, this work has important implications for the standardization process of energy systems in the future.  Based on the comments of the reviewers, this article can be accepted after revising the following questions.

1. In the abstract, the author should mentioned the importance of this review.
2. In Tables 1 and 4, landscape headers should be changed to portrait. In addition, Table one should use the form with three lines.
3. The underlining in the conclusion is inaccurate.

     4. An outlook should be provided.

5. The conclusions is too short.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors successfully addressed my comments and suggestions. Good Luck!

Reviewer 3 Report

Define acronyms the 1st time they are used.

In the abstract, authors use HVDC, FACTS, VAR...without defining them