A Review for Green Energy Machine Learning and AI Services
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have a few recommendations:
1. Do not use abbreviations in the abstract, especially those where you enumerate metrics. Also, keep the standard structure of the abstract: aim, method, and results while highlighting the usefulness and novelty of your research.
2. Check Table 1, you have two commas after a machine learning model. Try to introduce a background for readers unfamiliar with these models, maybe some references for them or explain the abbreviation if possible. The journal is not specific to these readers so it will help with readability.
3. Line 286, references should be interested between a single set of brackets, check the journal guidelines. Check the entire paper.
4. Line 619, you already explained the abbreviation, no need to explain it again. The rule is to explain all abbreviations the first time they appear in the text and afterwards use only the abbreviation. You explained ANN but not the other abbreviations. Try to be consistent. I am aware that there are lots of them but this is your topic.
5. Bringing promising academic results into practice. Line 981 This is not correct, the verb is missing. The last two phrases are not clear, especially the last one.
6. In Conclusion, emphasize also some limitations of your paper.
7. References should comply with the guidelines of the journal. Please correct them.
Bringing promising academic results into practice. Line 981 This is not correct, the verb is missing. The last two phrases are not clear, especially the last one. And other small phrases that should be checked by a professional.
Author Response
I appreciate you taking the time to review my paper. Here is the attached file and I have attempted to make corrections with all of the reviews listed.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
the article is relevant and interesting for readers; however, there are some notes need to be revised:
1. The number of literature sources is insufficient for this kind of Review, it should be 100-120 to make a comprehensive opinion. Also significant part of literature is quite old (2005-2015) for such a new area of research. Moreover, the rules of MDPI style of References list formatting are not observed.
2. The topic of using AI and ML for virtual power generators, important for green power producing management, is not observed in the review.
3. The same situation with Duck Curve observation - no opinions are mentioned how to use AI for improving wind and solar power generation and consumption peaks and falls.
4. Conclusion section should be amended with Authors perspective opinion on the development of AI in GE, based on the literature review.
Good luck!
Dear Authors,
I suggest carefull punctuation and grammar check.
Good luck!
Author Response
I appreciate you taking the time to review my paper. Here is the attached file and I have attempted to make corrections with all of the reviews listed.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The changes in the abstract are not highlighted. I consider that abbreviations should not be used in the abstract to keep the text simpler.
The formatting of references is still poor.
In this form of manuscript, lines are not visible so I am not aware of the changes made. I read all highlighted parts which are done for all reviewers but the authors should be more careful in responding. The responses are too general and no line is mentioned. Also, in this case, different colours for the reviewers should be used.
Generally, it is clear that the authors did their best to improve the paper even if there are some changes that were not done.
Author Response
Thank You for reviewing my paper. I appreciate your time.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Good luck!
Author Response
Thank You for reviewing my paper. I appreciate the your time.
