A Novel Operating State Evaluation Method for Photovoltaic Strings Based on TOPSIS and Its Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I am not in the favor of publication of this work in the journal. Here are my reasons:

1.            The manuscript is more like a technical report rather than a scientific paper.

2.            It is really hard to find novel contribution of this work.

3.            The low number of refrences  of the current work indicates the lack of sufficient and in-depth studies on the background and the structure of the article needs fundamental correction.

4.            The literature review is incomplete and the innovation is not noticable at all.

5.            The modeling and case study as well as the result section is weak.

6.            The paper did not bring anything new, and some similar research works have been published even with more details.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for your efforts on preparation of this interesting study. I think the paper can be considered as a good publication candidate after improving it with following suggestions:

- Literature review can be expanded by presentation of MCDM applications in PV systems like "Aktas, A., Kabak, M. A Hybrid Hesitant Fuzzy Decision-Making Approach for Evaluating Solar Power Plant Location Sites. Arab J Sci Eng 44, 7235–7247 (2019).".

- Main contributions of the study can be presented as bullet-items.

- The flowchart for given by Fig. 5 can be expressed at the beginning of 3rd part.

- The organization of the 3rd part can be improved. 

- No information provided about CRITIC and TOPSIS results. These are needed.

- Evaluation results can be explained in more detail.

- Limitations of the study and directions for further research are missing in the conclusion part.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors:

I consider that the document needs to be reorganized, so that the methodology, results and conclusions are clearly stated.

In Figure 1 to 3 and 7, it is not clear where they are obtained from, or from which plant or photovoltaic array.

Separate the results from the discussion. And in the discussion contrast or present the results obtained with the results of other investigations.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors did a good job to revise the paper based on the raised comments. However, there are three issues that have not been addressed yet:

1.            Despite extension, literature review still needs adding more works. Please do that by focusing on publications in the journal.

2.            Limitations of the work should be explained and discussed.

3.            The reference for all equations should be given.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The revisions are successful. Thanks for your efforts.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors. Thank you very much for considering suggestions to improve the manuscript. However, I believe that it lacks a discussion that allows its results to be contrasted with the results of other investigations. Although they do an analysis of their results, there are no citations that reflect that they have studied other articles and have put their results in context.

The discussion should stand apart and should not be considered just as an example.

This point is essential, which is why I consider that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in a journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision has been done in a way that the current version could be recommended for publication in the journal.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, thank you again for considering the suggestions. The document has important changes compared to the original version. However, the discussion is still not included. The discussion is fundamental in a scientific paper and allows the authors to put their results in context with the results of other research.

This is a reiterative flaw in the manuscript and I believe it is not suitable for publication in a journal.