Research on Coordinated Optimization of Source-Load-Storage Considering Renewable Energy and Load Similarity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. In the abstract, please mention the importance of obtained results to attract readers.
2. The abstract needs some improvement to reflect the results in the paper
3. Add some numerical values to the abstract.
4. introduction is too short, needs some improvements
5. literature review on the optimization methods needs to be added.
6. What about AI.
7. Limitations of the work needs to be added
8. More References can be discussed and cited
9. Compare your work to previous published research and highlight the novelty and the improvements
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo comments
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors· The introduction should provide more context and background information about the problem of selecting physicians, the importance of the issue, and existing solutions or challenges.
· A more comprehensive review of related work is needed. You should compare your approach with existing methods, discussing their strengths and weaknesses. This can help to highlight the novelty of your work.
· The abstract is a concise summary of your paper. It should include more details about the methodology and the results obtained. Readers should be able to understand what you did and what you found without reading the entire paper.
· The results should be presented clearly and concisely. Use tables and charts to help visualize the data and make it easier to understand.
· The discussion section should analyze the results in more detail. Explain what the results mean in the context of your research question and objectives. Are there any limitations or potential sources of bias in your results?
· Conclude the paper by discussing potential avenues for future research or improvements to your model.
· Please include in the references section more sources. For example, these papers:
o Faridul Islam, Nazmunnahar Moni, Suraya Akhter, "Feasibility Analysis of a 100MW Photovoltaic Solar Power Plant at Rajshahi, Bangladesh Using RETScreen Software", International Journal of Engineering and Manufacturing (IJEM), Vol.13, No.4, pp. 1-10, 2023. DOI:10.5815/ijem.2023.04.01
o Pam Paul Gyang, Fubara Edmund Alfred-Abam, Fiyinfoluwa Pelumi Olubodun, "Analysis of an Actively Energized 11/0.415 kV Distribution Transformer Using Power Quality and Energy Analyzer", International Journal of Engineering and Manufacturing (IJEM), Vol.13, No.3, pp. 1-9, 2023. DOI:10.5815/ijem.2023.03.01
o Md. Samiul Islam, Faridul Islam, Md. Ahsan Habib, "Feasibility Analysis and Simulation of the Solar Photovoltaic Rooftop System Using PVsyst Software", International Journal of Education and Management Engineering (IJEME), Vol.12, No.6, pp. 21-32, 2022. DOI:10.5815/ijeme.2022.06.03
· Ensure that all references are correctly cited and formatted following the journal's citation style.
· Consider including more figures and diagrams to illustrate your methodology, results, and the physician recommendation network. Visual aids can enhance understanding.
· Review the paper for grammatical errors and clarity. Ensure that the text is concise and well-written.
· The related work section is somewhat sparse. Provide a more comprehensive review of similar studies and their findings.
· It's important to clarify whether this research involves human subjects and if ethical considerations or approval were obtained.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Hello! I regret to inform you that due to a serious illness, I was unable to make the necessary revisions to the manuscript on time. However, my health has slightly improved recently, and I have promptly made the required modifications to the manuscript. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review my manuscript titled "Research on Coordinated Optimization of Source-Load-Storage Considering Renewable Energy and Load Similarity." I sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and suggestions. Every single comment you provided is of great importance to me, as they offer significant guidance for my paper writing and research work. Your constructive criticism serves as a tremendous encouragement and support to me.
Following your suggestions, the main body of the manuscript has been revised. Specific responses to your comments are as follows:
Issues 1：The introduction should provide more context and background information about the problem of selecting physicians, the importance of the issue, and existing solutions or challenges.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestions provided by the reviewer. We have supplemented the introduction section of this article and added more background information on existing solutions or challenges. The specific modifications have been highlighted in the revised manuscript.
Issues 2：A more comprehensive review of related work is needed. You should compare your approach with existing methods, discussing their strengths and weaknesses. This can help to highlight the novelty of your work.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestions provided by the reviewer. This paper has added comparative work with existing methods to highlight its novelty. Firstly, in Section 6.3, the scheduling strategy presented in this paper is compared with the currently popular economic objectives, emphasizing that the scheduling strategy in this paper not only ensures the economic operation of the system but also ensures the similarity between the renewable energy curve and the load curve. Secondly, in Section 6.4, two sets of comparative work have been added to emphasize the superiority of the similarity measurement function proposed in this paper for renewable energy-load.
Issues 3：The abstract is a concise summary of your paper. It should include more details about the methodology and the results obtained. Readers should be able to understand what you did and what you found without reading the entire paper.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestions provided by the reviewers. The abstract of this paper has been revised to include the methods used, add some key numerical values, and emphasize the obtained results to highlight the importance of this study. The specific modifications have been highlighted in the revised manuscript.
Issues 4：The results should be presented clearly and concisely. Use tables and charts to help visualize the data and make it easier to understand.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestions provided by the reviewers. However, regarding this issue, in Section 6, the case study part, this paper has made efforts to present the results using graphs and tables and has provided detailed explanations of the table and graph results to facilitate readers' understanding of the research content of this paper.
Issues 5：The discussion section should analyze the results in more detail. Explain what the results mean in the context of your research question and objectives.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestions provided by the reviewers. In the discussion section, this paper has been supplemented to provide a more detailed analysis of the results. The specific modifications have been highlighted in the revised manuscript.
Issues 6：Conclude the paper by discussing potential avenues for future research or improvements to your model.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestions provided by the reviewers. The conclusion section of this paper has been revised to include a discussion on future research directions. The specific modifications have been highlighted in the revised manuscript.
Issues 7：Please include in the references section more sources. For example, these papers.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestions provided by the reviewers. This paper has added more references, including those recommended by you.
Issues 8：Ensure that all references are correctly cited and formatted following the journal's citation style.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestions provided by the reviewers. This paper has checked the references to ensure that all citations are properly formatted according to the citation style of the journal.
Issues 9：Review the paper for grammatical errors and clarity. Ensure that the text is concise and well-written.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestions provided by the reviewers. The grammar errors and clarity of expression in the paper have been checked, and the paper has been professionally proofread by a language editing service.
Issues 10：The related work section is somewhat sparse. Provide a more comprehensive review of similar studies and their findings.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestions provided by the reviewers. This paper has conducted a more comprehensive literature review on similar studies and has added some comparative experiments in Section 6. The specific modifications have been highlighted in the revised manuscript.
Issues 11：It's important to clarify whether this research involves human subjects and if ethical considerations or approval were obtained.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestions provided by the reviewers. The research area of this paper is in the field of electrical engineering, and it does not involve human subjects or ethical issues.
The above is my response to the revision comments.
I wish you all the best!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for your valuable work.
Provide a little more details on the study system and case assumptions in Section 6.1 for reproducibility.
Conclusions summarize the main outcomes but could be strengthened further with limitations of current work and future research directions discussed.
Carefully proofread the paper once again to identify and fix any residual typos, grammar issues or awkward wording. This will polish the paper further.
The references appear appropriate. Check for any missing relevant recent works.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI would say the use of English language is of good quality in this paper and meets the expectations for a strong academic writing style. Perhaps some minor proofreading could help polish the language further, but it is not a major concern from my assessment.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is an ordinary paper. The theme of the paper is also ordinary.
In order to be excellent, the following comments are made:
First, in this paper, the IEEE 30 node model was used, and the features (abilities) of the IEEE 30 model must be described. That is, the stability of the IEEE 30 node, the load follow -up, the transient response, the Optimal Power Flow perspective, the recovery ability in the faults, inertia, etc.
Secondly, the characteristics of the cement load and aluminum load used in the paper must be described. The voltage characteristics for the load, Power and stability limit etc.
Also, The "constraint" described in the paper is not just a constraint, it is just a condition.
Third, using the two comments mentioned above, ESS and renewable energy optimization are needed.
In addition, this paper lacks detail.. The optimization or fuzzy theory in the paper is also common and common sense.
However, this paper is valued from a one case study point of view, so it allows a paper publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is fully modified and edited.
