Energy Anxiety in Decentralized Electricity Markets: A Critical Review on EV Models
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presents a general x-ray of the subject of Decentralized Electricity markets. The topic is presented in detail, addressing India's policy on Decentralized Electricity markets.
To improve the quality of the article, I recommend:
1. The article is a bit long. I recommend concentrating the information, if possible.
2. As the article contains a lot of information, I recommend making a visual abstract or a figure, to be placed in the introductory part, and to present a mapping of the presented topic.
3. I recommend that the conclusions include more detailed, more specific information on the subject.
4. It would help if the conclusions were supplemented by information from the Indian reality on the subject, thus increasing the interest of the international scientific community in the subject.
5. Please review all bibliographic titles. Some of them do not contain sufficient information on identifying the source.
Line 12 - "we continue to belive" - ​​I recommend an objective expression, not a subjective one
Line 100 - figures are not clear (all figures in the article, not just the one mentioned). I recommend restoring them.
Line 130 - figures are inserted in the text before inserting the figure, not after. Please review the text for all figures.
Line 255 - if you have subcategories eg. 4.1, 4.2, I recommend two paragraphs for each. Subcategory for a sentence is not justified.
Author Response
Pls see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read the article with attention and interest, because it addresses current problems. The content is described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research on the topic very well, but in the review article research questions should be stated.
In the following, you can find some suggestions and comments that I hope may be useful to improve the quality of your study.
The abstract must be rephrased – it should include: the purpose of the article, the research methods and the research findings.
The individual parts of the article should be outlined in the introduction, which should also highlight the research gap and emphasize the contribution made by the article. It is not stated what the individual parts of the article result from. The research procedure used in this article is unclear.
The article is based on a literature review, therefore, there is explanation is needed of the "searching and selection" of literature.
The content of the article does not show its contribution to both literature and practice. In the present form, the article does not indicate whether the conclusions of the carried out research can, in any way, enrich the existing knowledge.
The arguments are clearly presented in the section 4, 6 and 7 but in the remaining parts of the article require improvement.
What is lacking in this paper are: describing of the limitations of this study and future research.
Author Response
Pls see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This literature review demonstrates a large amount of work to review the issues and challenges in the field from various aspects such as the long-term features of decentralized generation, the probable impacts of electric vehicles on India’s grid capacity, and electric vehicles modeling approaches. There are a sensible number of references included, enough to paint the necessary background in the field. The review distinguishes between what has been done in the field and what needs to be done. Clearly and correctly articulates some logical implications and consequences based on relevant evidence; including critical analysis of the literature supporting the work, the methods used, and the results obtained. But the review presents mainly descriptive analysis, lacking relevant discussion of connexions between different aspects of the work. The main methods and research techniques that have been used in this field are identified based on engineering principles and some validation processes, but their advantages and disadvantages are not compared. Some presentation of data with little analysis. This evaluation rationalizes the practical significance of the research problem, with the main aim of producing a positive impact on electric vehicles and related industries. Some of the figures are small which does make reading them a challenge.
1. The boundaries of what the review contains should be written clearly in the introduction, indicating what the review does not include.
2. Both the content and sub-topics covered by the review should be included in the introduction, such as achieving financial stability in decentralized infrastructure and intelligent Smart Power grids to support Electric vehicle charging, etc.
3. Opinions can be written when expounding on decentralized distributed generation in India, e.g., comparing the different control and coordination strategies for Distributed Energy Resources (DER’s) and Energy Storage systems (ESS’s).
4. For different government financial incentives, the impact of different measures on the market can be compared, and which measures are more conducive to the development of the electric vehicle market.
5. For the description of the benefits of electric vehicle grid integration, literatures with the same viewpoints should be comprehensively described, and literatures with different viewpoints should be compared, and the advantages and disadvantages should be written, and should not be listed in a general way. This advice also applies to the challenges of electric vehicle grid integration.
6. Modelling approaches of electric vehicles should not be simply listed, different methods should be categorized and compared, and the advantages and disadvantages of different methods should be compared.
7. The main points of agreement and disagreement in the literature review should be included in the conclusion. In addition, which gaps in previous studies were addressed should also be included in the conclusions.
8. Figures 4,7 and 11 can be enlarged for easier reading.
9. The title should be placed above the table when the table is on a different page.
10. Large areas of white space should not appear in the article, which is very imprecise, and a reasonable layout is necessary.
Author Response
Pls see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
When reviewing scientific papers for publication, I usually start with a general overview in terms of a structure, abstract, literature review, methodology, findings of the research, discussion, conclusions, as well as limitations of the study.
I can see the author conducted a lot of work.
To improve the quality of the paper I would suggest to:
The structure or process of the review should be explained at the beginning of the article.
Keep the font consistent and pay attention to the image's finesse.
The contribution of this study needs to be highlighted.
Author Response
Pls see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
First of all, i appreciate the authors dealing with the hot topic on electrical vehicles and possible grid issues.
Here are my suggestions;
1- Figure 4 requires better graphics and resolution. And please check other figures.
2- Sections 3.1,3.2 and 3.3 are the core issues due to EVs. And for this type of review, these sections should be enlarged with proper graphs, images and explanations etc.
3- Table 1 and 2 are well classified in terms of benefits and challenges. A third table such as “summary table” can be given to express the focus of the current studies, main issues and trend analysis.
4- It states that fast charging reduces the lifespan of the battery, as this is well known. But this review should also include the effect of V2G on lifespan of the battery. Why should it be preferred by the customer? Customer financial benefits from the V2G and possible reasons to avoid V2G can be given.
5- Manuscript is generally focused on global perspective as it should be. But it is not understood why the Section 1, 2 and 3 deals with India. It should also offer a global perspective for such a review. This also disrupts the overall integrity. I suggest that section 1, 2 and 3 are re-discussed and changed, with the point of global view.
Author Response
Pls see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I can see the authors conducted a lot of work.
The introduced corrections increased the substantive level of the article.
Reviewer 5 Report
The authors have satisfactorily addressed most of my concerns and given revisions have significantly improved the manuscript.
