Mitigating Subsynchronous Torsional Interaction Using Geometric Feature Extraction Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have some suggestions for authors:

- to highlight the contributions of the article in the introduction;

- to have more recent references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I think this paper is interesting and related to the topic of the Sustainability journal. However, some revisions have to be considered.

1. The abstract of the paper should include: 1) the main purpose of the work and the research problem, 2) the basic design of the work 3) major findings as a result of the analysis, 4) a brief summary of the interpretations and conclusions. The paper abstract must be rewritten again with plainly numerical and straightforward results. In addition, the more numerical results must be considered in the abstract about aims of the journal.

2. The novelty of work is not defined effectively. The novelty and originality of the paper should be justified by highlighting that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge.

3. The current literature review is not sufficient and the research gap is not clear. The most important difference between the present work from the studies in the literature is not clearly emphasized. It is advised to add a table for comparing the paper and literature. Please add more up-to-date articles in the introduction, you can add some articles about integrated systems like "Integrating energy and water optimization in buildings using multi-objective mixed-integer linear programming"

4. The objective, constraints, methodology, and results should be better described, discussed, and justified. Try to add a flowchart that can help the researchers understand the main points easily. ‎This flowchart should describe the "Subsynchronous Torsional Interaction Detection Algorithm using Geometrical Feature Extraction Method" section. ‎

5. Please improve the structure of equations, for example, in equation (1), the authors didn't mention it in the manuscript, also they didn't provide the definition of parameters and variables in equations (1), (2), (3), and (4).

6. As a key part of a paper, the Discussion should show the readers at least two elements: "breadth" and "depth". "Breadth" reflects whether the analytical results can be explained via different approaches. "Depth" reflects whether the analytical results completely answer the questions raised in the Introduction. My first sense shows the current Discussion is without enough insight. This should explore the significance of the results of the work, not repeat them.

7. Rewrite the conclusion chapter as it looks more like a general summary of the paper. The most important findings should be backed up by results. (eg. provide quantitative results in conclusions)

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept