Critical Technical Issues with a Voltage-Source-Converter-Based High Voltage Direct Current Transmission System for the Onshore Integration of Offshore Wind Farms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I would like to thank the authors for their contributions; this work Critical Technical Issues of a Voltage Source Converter based HVDC Transmission Systems for Onshore Integration of Off shore Wind Farms.  The topic is hot nowadays, and the manuscript is well-written.

 

 The manuscript has great potential to get a high number of citations.

 

Finally, to boost the energy production of offshore generation, OWFs are being placed farther out into the ocean. As power rating and distance grow, the conductor configuration and transmission mode change.

Comments

 

·      Insert the main objective of your work in the abstract?

·      Introduction does not provide sufficient background and does not include all relevant references?

·      The authors improve your English language in your manuscript?

·      The conclusion section should be adapted such that it is totally supported by the obtained results. It is necessary to add the conclusions and add possibility of application.

·      Conclusion is not clear?

·      Add recommendations for the continuation of your work, because the work presented is very interesting?

·      Explain how to explicate these results in the field, before talking about the next step in the recommendations.

 

For these reasons and with a plagiarism rate that does not exceed 38% (according to my turnitin account), a very high rate of plagiarism.  I suggest that the authors use a better resolution and quality to maintain the level of excellence of this journal.

 

 

Considering the quality of the work, the method used, the presentation, and the methodology followed by the authors, I recommend the paper for acceptance after minor revisions.

The present language quality is good enough and needs to be.

 

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the review panel for constructive criticisms and valuable comments, which were of great help in revising the manuscript. Find here an attachment of Response to Reviewer 1 File, comprises of point to point response to each comment. Furthermore text in revised manuscript highlighted with Red color.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have to incorporate the suggestions for improving the readability of the paper

1. Nomenclature of all the abbreviations is required.

2. Fig.6  and  Fig.11 are same and  repeated  and  for explanation  one figure is sufficient.  

3. The introduction section need to be revised  incorporating appropriate citations. The contribution of  the authors have to be mentioned at the end of the introduction section.

4. The selection criterion proposed can be explained with a flow chart.  

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the review panel for constructive criticisms and valuable comments, which were of great help in revising the manuscript. Find here an attachment of Response to Reviewer 2 File, comprises of point to point response to each comment. Furthermore text in revised manuscript highlighted with Blue color.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

First of all, please uniformize the citation style applied in the manuscript. There is more than one reference by numbered item in the reference list. This is completely unacceptable. Please see the correct reference style applied to the journal.

 

Please do not start a subsection under a section without any context. E.g. 1. and 1.1. Moreover, the introduction section should stand alone and not be divided into subsections. The authors should present a relevant context for the work, followed by the state-of-the-art description, literature gap, and novelty of the current work.

 

Please do not split tables between pages 

 

The introduction section needs to be completely rewritten. First, the main text structure and order in which the arguments are presented in not adequate. The novelty and main objective of the current paper are not clear. The authors need to clearly mention the main contribution of the current paper. The state-of-the-art description should be improved with more references. The authors cited too many outdated studies and conference proceedings. The majority of the cited studies should be papers recently published by high-relevance journals, in order to clearly show that the current approach is novel as compared to the most relevant studies in the field.

 

The authors need to discuss in detail the main achievements and limitations of the mentioned studies, in order to establish the literature gap that should be fulfilled by the current study. The authors need to provide a clear comparison between the current paper and the mentioned studies, to show the main novelty of the presented method as compared to the cited studies. 

 

Another good method to highlight the main contribution of the current paper as compared to the literature state of the art is including a table at the end of the introduction which summarizes the main difference between the proposed study as compared to similar published papers.

 

It is not clear the relevance of the data presented in Figures 1 and 2. Please provide extra comments regarding the relevance of such information for the paper's main objectives, or remove these images. 

 

Please do not refer to numbered references as : In [30]… it is far better to mention the author's names in this context. E.g. In the work of Bresesti et al. [30]… Please check this issue in the whole manuscript

 

Figure 8 lines appear faded. Please enhance the figure colors.

 

Please do not split numbers and their respective units between lines.

 

Based on the present data, the study does not seem suitable for publication. The paper does not show relevant results or discussions regarding the main theme. The presented information can not be considered a novel contribution. The discussion section which should be the core of the study is not adequate, the authors poorly commented on the main achievements of the study, which are also not clear.

 

The presented study showed too many major issues that can't be accepted for publication in a relevant journal.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the review panel for constructive criticisms and valuable comments, which were of great help in revising the manuscript. Find here an attachment of Response to Reviewer 3 File, comprises of point to point response to each comment. Furthermore text in revised manuscript highlighted with Green color.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The latest version of the paper demonstrates significant improvement compared to its previous version. The authors have addressed all of my queries satisfactorily, and after a thorough examination, I have not identified any further issues with the manuscript. Hence, I recommend accepting the paper in its present form.