Reduction of Power Losses and Voltage Profile Improvement in a Smart Grid Incorporated with Electric Vehicles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The width of Figures 1, 3, 5, 6, and Table 1 should be consistent with the text width, and the characters in Figure 1 should be explained;
2. Revise English expression errors in the paper, such as "The following are GA parameters" in Line 285 and "There are typically 2 to 2.5 times as many genes as there are in N populations." in Line 289;
3. The width of Formulas (1) - (10) should not be wider than the width of the text;
4. Suggest the author to provide the iterative process of power loss obtained by different algorithms.
Correct grammar and spelling errors in the text.
Author Response
Thank you for your positive comments. Your comments are taken with serious concern.
- Width of the figures, equations and tables are in line with text.
- The gramma errors have been corrected.
- Comparisons on different algorithms have been discussed on the results section.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. please reduce the abstract, please reduce the Abstract paragraph, In my opinion, line 10 to line 32 is too big. Try to focus on the important part only
2. Abstract of the article is confusing and must be rectified. It must include the improvement strategy, which is used to modify the existing algorithm.
3. please support the abstract by obtained results
4. The research paper should be written in the perspective of the third person. Words such as ‘I’ ‘we’ ‘our’ etc. needs to be avoided. Such as: " We use the 90 following objective function to find....", " our study of 168 the relevant literature,...", "we will cover various optimization algorithms...", etc.
3.The choice of methods for literature review does not convince me - there are many voices in the scientific community criticizing the creation of new metaheuristics, the only innovation of which is the presentation of new nomenclature. I am afraid that some of the methods you have presented may be counted among them. However, there are no classic techniques. Additionally, improved approach used in the name has not been explained, and I miss the reference to improved algorithms. One should also pay attention to the level of complexity of the proposed approach, making it difficult to implement.
4.There is lack information about the statistical tests used, during comparisons you should choose methods belonging to the state-of-the-art, there is no information on how to determine the parameters of the proposed algorithm, analysis of the results (especially convergence) is sketchy and some of the figures are of poor quality.
5.Some of the important references related to economic load dispatch problem are missing in the manuscript, which includes:
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202305.2060/v1
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2603
https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1049/rpg2.12466
6. Some key parameters during simulations were omitted.
7. The meaning of some symbols is not given.
8.The authors should pay attention to use a variable to represent a meaning, and do not use multiple symbols to represent a meaning.
9.The authors should not use multiple symbols to represent a variable to avoid ambiguity.
10.The results, should be discussed more detailed. What are the insights?
11.There are lot of other typo errors and grammatical errors, which must be rectified in the revised version of the manuscript.
Extensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for your positive comments. Your comments are taken with serious concern.
The abstract has been revised.
The paper is written in third person.
The literature review section has been revised and summarized.
More information has been added on the proposed algorithm ant the quality of figures in the results section has been improved.
More information has been added to the discussion of results section.
The use of symbols has been corrected.
The gramma error has been corrected.
Reviewer 3 Report
· Following improvements are required in abstract section:
1. Provide more specific details about the methodology used in the HGAPSO method, including the hybridization of genetic algorithms and particle swarm optimization, and explaining the specific components or operators involved.
2. Discuss the potential benefits of the proposed technique in terms of environmental impact, energy efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, to highlight its contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting sustainable energy consumption.
3. Include insights or recommendations for practical implementation of the proposed technique in real-world scenarios, such as electric power systems or transportation networks, to make the abstract more useful for policymakers, businesses, and researchers.
4. Emphasize the significance of the research by highlighting the current challenges and limitations in the field of electric mobility and renewable energy adoption.
5. Provide more context on the broader implications of the research by discussing how the proposed technique aligns with and supports the goals of governments and businesses in promoting responsible energy consumption.
6. Consider mentioning any novel or innovative aspects of the HGAPSO method that differentiate it from existing approaches or algorithms.
7. If available, include some quantitative results or metrics to support the claims of effectiveness, such as specific reductions in power losses or improvements in the system's bus voltage profile.
8. Ensure the abstract is written in a clear and concise manner, avoiding excessive technical jargon and explaining any complex terms or concepts to make it accessible to a wider audience.
9. Consider mentioning any potential limitations or challenges of the proposed technique to provide a balanced perspective and encourage further research and development.
10. If feasible, provide examples or case studies illustrating the application of the HGAPSO method in practical scenarios to enhance the practical relevance of the research.
· While the introduction is satisfactory, it would be valuable to incorporate more contemporary literature into the discussion to enhance its relevance and depth.
· The manuscript contains several topological errors, for instance “New Binnary Particle" in line number 329.
· Considering the widespread familiarity with GA and PSO techniques, delving into an extensive discussion of them may not be beneficial. Instead, if the authors have introduced a novel hybrid GA and PSO technique, it would be prudent to focus solely on that aspect. In cases where the technique has already been extensively discussed in existing literature, referencing those works would suffice.
· The discussion lacks information regarding the selection of parameters for GA and PSO.
· To enrich the study, it would be valuable to incorporate additional case studies that consider larger test systems.
· Following improvements are required in conclusion section:
1. Clarify the specific advantages of the hybrid GA-PSO method used in this research. Explain how it effectively preserves population diversity, reduces solution space through "mending," and avoids premature convergence, resulting in the ability to quickly find global optimal solutions.
2. Provide more specific details about the improvements achieved by the proposed hybrid technique. Highlight the reduction in average loss, standard deviation, and computing time, along with the enhanced voltage profile and optimization of actual and reactive power losses.
3. Discuss the limitations of ordinary PSO for real-world power system optimization, particularly regarding local minima and early convergence. Emphasize how the HGAPSO method overcomes these limitations by diversifying variable values through the mutation operator and optimizing over a wider search space.
4. Elaborate on the practical applications of the research findings, specifically addressing line congestion and overcrowded feeders. Explain how altering line switches and controlling contributing variables can help alleviate line congestion, but note that load shedding may still be necessary in certain cases. Provide insights into potential future directions for addressing overcrowded feeders without generators.
5. Provide more context and explanation for the algorithm devised to alleviate technical congestion. Clarify how electric vehicles (EVs) can alter their charging patterns to contribute to the system, either by charging more, slowing down or halting charging, or even supplying energy through vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology.
6. Emphasize the flexibility and advantages of leveraging V2G in relieving line congestion, regardless of the presence or absence of generators in the feeder. Highlight how EVs can make a positive impact on the system by not relying on gasoline or diesel, and discuss the different ways in which EVs can contribute to congestion alleviation through V2G.
7. Provide more information on the practical implementation of the proposed algorithm and its potential scalability and adaptability to different power systems and EV integration scenarios.
8. Consider discussing any limitations or challenges that need to be addressed in future research to further improve the effectiveness and applicability of the proposed methods.
Needs improvement.
Author Response
Thank you for your positive comments. Your comments are taken with serious concern.
The abstract has been revised.
The implementation of the study in real life and how does it's supported the businesses is given on the contribution of the study section.
The literature review section has been revised and summarized.
More information has been added on the proposed algorithm.
More information has been added to the discussion of results section.
The use of symbols has been corrected.
The gramma error has been corrected.
Reviewer 4 Report
Many authors addressed the proposed problem. There has yet to be any new work has been suggested. This paper is not in the standard for publication.
- Many such similar works have already been done. For your reference, I have given some research papers.
- A Two-Stage EV Charging Planning and Network Reconfiguration Methodology towards Power Loss Minimization in Low and Medium Voltage Distribution Network, Energies 2022, 15(10),
- Minimization of Power Losses in Distribution System via Sequential Placement of Distributed Generation and Charging Station, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering volume 39, pages3023–3031 (2014)
- Power Loss Minimization and Voltage Stability Improvement in Electrical Distribution System via Network Reconfiguration and Distributed Generation Placement Using Novel Adaptive Shuffled Frogs Leaping Algorithm, Energies 2019, 12(3), 553;
- In the proposed model, there needs to be more information about the battery model.
- The authors considered only power loss minimization and voltage profile improvement. How about the cost function while installing a charging station on a given bus?
- The authors should have emphasized finding problems rather than optimization techniques.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for your positive comments and suggestions, they are taken with serios concern.
The study uses hybrid genetic algorithm particle swarm optimization the minimize power losses in the system to accommodate the load of EVs. More information has been added on the proposed algorithm and on the results section.
Reviewer 5 Report
General comments:
Congratulations for this research work, I will encourage you to pursue the publication of your manuscript. After reading the manuscript the basic methodological research designs look well performed, including the problem, hypothesis, main objective and a deep methodological design. The innovative part of the paper is also highlighted. However, I suggest that after major revisions it could be published.
I would like to say that the present manuscript is highly interesting and contributes to the scientific research domain once authors are proposing to conduct a study aiming to produce a better optimization strategy that can be used to apply to the reconfiguration of electrical power networks as its intended application.
Major issues.
Abstract is longer (280) than the maximum of words described in MDPI’s template (200). It must be reworked and briefly describes the research question, objective, methods, results, and conclusions.
Section 1.6, remove it, there is no need to describe the paper structure, once the Authors must follow the MDPI template, it will reduce the length of the manuscript. In the same context, sections 1.2 to 1.5 must be also removed. Usually, these sections are paragraphs included in the introduction and even draw into the abstract.
Section 2. Literature review.
It is a large section, almost 6 pages and is a mix of theoretical concepts with methodological steps. As a result, it looks like part of the methods. I will be hesitant to keep chart flows such as Figures 2 and 3 in this section. You must remove unnecessary and confusing material. Remember, when you divide and introduction and a literature review in 2 different sections, the concepts could be confusing for the readers due a larger manuscript. Consider this and avoid unnecessary material or even sections.
Section 3, Methodology.
Table 1 line 421, review the captions and apply those recommended it MDPI’S template. This table looks more like kind of results than methodological steps. Beware you mention more than one table in which the system is described, line 417 Tables 1 (36).
Table 1. 507: review the captions and apply those recommended it MDPI’S template. Also, I recommend you reviewing the whole numbers of equations, tables and figures, the manuscript looks unfinished as presented.
Line 418-421, there is no text describing any idea between Figure 4 and Table 1; avoid placing those kinds of elements in the manuscript because the flow of the ideas seems broken.
Section 4, Results.
Same thing here that in lines 506 to 509, there is no text describing any idea between Table 1 (wrong duplicated number) and Figure 6; avoid placing those kinds of elements in the manuscript because the flow of the ideas seems broken.
Figure 7: it will be a good idea to rename this Table, avoid the “shows”, because the showing or description is redundant in a Table or figure.
Section V Conclusions.
It is noticed that the MDPI’s template is not respected along the manuscript. The numbers between sections are mixed, romans-numerals.
Also, once you want to conclude and conclusions must be compared vs the proposed objectives, so they must be modified and highlighted paragraph by paragraph, because currently this section do not look as conclusions, it is just text. Also, future venues of research must be proposed.
Section VI Abbreviations.
You are mistaken V2G by G2G, please correct it.
Again, congratulations on your research work. This is an interesting manuscript, able to be published, after major corrections. Authors technical skills are on display; however, the whole manuscript looks unfinished not yet ready to be published. The manuscript looks larger than usual, you must remove several parts. Even though I enjoyed the reading involving responsible energy consumption.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for your positive comments. Your comments are taken with serious concern.
The abstract has been revised.
The paper structure section has been removed.
The literature review section has been revised and summarized.
The template has been followed and errors has been corrected.
Tables, equations and figures has been revised.
Numbering and paragraph have been revised.
The gramma error has been corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
no comments
Extensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, the English errors has been corrected.
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank the authors for modifying the paper as per my comments. Kindly improve the quality of the Figures. Many typo errors exist. For example, In figure 1, Load flow Transmission system.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, the English errors has been corrected.
Reviewer 5 Report
I am surprised, because it seems Authors do not consider the majority of my comments. Is like the same manuscript, send it so fast (less that 5 days after my review) that I am afraid must of the comments from the majority of Reviewers were not considered. One of us even reject the manuscript.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
General comments:
Congratulations for this research work, I will encourage you to pursue the publication of your manuscript. After reading the manuscript the basic methodological research designs look well performed, including the problem, hypothesis, main objective and a deep methodological design. The innovative part of the paper is also highlighted. However, I suggest that after major revisions it could be published.
Author’s response: Thank you very much for taking your time reviewing our manuscript, your comment is much appreciated and encouraging.
I would like to say that the present manuscript is highly interesting and contributes to the scientific research domain once authors are proposing to conduct a study aiming to produce a better optimization strategy that can be used to apply to the reconfiguration of electrical power networks as its intended application.
Major issues.
Abstract is longer (280) than the maximum of words described in MDPI’s template (200). It must be reworked and briefly describes the research question, objective, methods, results, and conclusions.
Author’s response: The abstract has been reworked summarized as per your comment, the abstract shows the research question, the proposed method, the results and the conclusion are shown in the abstract
Section 1.6, remove it, there is no need to describe the paper structure, once the Authors must follow the MDPI template, it will reduce the length of the manuscript. In the same context, sections 1.2 to 1.5 must be also removed. Usually, these sections are paragraphs included in the introduction and even draw into the abstract.
Author’s response: Section 1.6 was removed; section 1.2 was removed, and the problem statement was added on the introduction and 1.5 the research question was added on the abstract.
Section 2. Literature review.
It is a large section, almost 6 pages and is a mix of theoretical concepts with methodological steps. As a result, it looks like part of the methods. I will be hesitant to keep chart flows such as Figures 2 and 3 in this section. You must remove unnecessary and confusing material. Remember, when you divide and introduction and a literature review in 2 different sections, the concepts could be confusing for the readers due a larger manuscript. Consider this and avoid unnecessary material or even sections.
Author’s response: The literature review has been revised and some materials have been removed as per the review suggestion, the pages are reduced to 3.
Section 3, Methodology.
Table 1 line 421, review the captions and apply those recommended it MDPI’S template. This table looks more like kind of results than methodological steps. Beware you mention more than one table in which the system is described, line 417 Tables 1 (36).
Author’s response: Table 1 caption has been reviewed and the table numbers are corrected.
Table 1. 507: review the captions and apply those recommended it MDPI’S template. Also, I recommend you reviewing the whole numbers of equations, tables and figures, the manuscript looks unfinished as presented.
Author’s response: The equation numbers have been reviewed, figure numbers and table numbers.
Line 418-421, there is no text describing any idea between Figure 4 and Table 1; avoid placing those kinds of elements in the manuscript because the flow of the ideas seems broken.
Author’s response: Table 1 and figure 4 of which now is figure 2 has been introduced in the first paragraph of the methodology section
Section 4, Results.
Same thing here that in lines 506 to 509, there is no text describing any idea between Table 1 (wrong duplicated number) and Figure 6; avoid placing those kinds of elements in the manuscript because the flow of the ideas seems broken.
Author’s response: Tables have been introduced in the texts as well as figures
Figure 7: it will be a good idea to rename this Table, avoid the “shows”, because the showing or description is redundant in a Table or figure.
Author’s response: In figure 7 the tittle has been revised.
Section V Conclusions.
It is noticed that the MDPI’s template is not respected along the manuscript. The numbers between sections are mixed, romans-numerals.
Author’s response: The section numbers are revised.
Also, once you want to conclude and conclusions must be compared vs the proposed objectives, so they must be modified and highlighted paragraph by paragraph, because currently this section do not look as conclusions, it is just text. Also, future venues of research must be proposed.
Author’s response: The conclusion section has been revised and the future recommendations has been added
Section VI Abbreviations.
You are mistaken V2G by G2G, please correct it.
Author’s response: The mistake has been corrected
Again, congratulations on your research work. This is an interesting manuscript, able to be published, after major corrections. Authors technical skills are on display; however, the whole manuscript looks unfinished not yet ready to be published. The manuscript looks larger than usual; you must remove several parts. Even though I enjoyed the reading involving responsible energy consumption.
Author’s response: Thank you very much for your positive and encouraging comment, the manuscript has been revised according to your recommendations and we are really sorry for not considering your comments on the manuscript revision, when point-to-point response was done, your comments were really looked in details. Once again thank you for recommending our research work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 5 Report
Subsection 1.2 is missing, must renumber the whole section.
Also not so convinced to place 2-3 figures one after another without any context.
Take care of the title of Figure 2, because it jumps to the next page.
You are missing the Authors contributions and acknowledgement sections at the end of the manuscript.
