Modeling the Functioning of the Half-Cells Photovoltaic Module under Partial Shading in the Matlab Package
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has many good points and represents a lot of work congratulations.
However it misses a reference point. The previous results (reference 23) should be included, or measurement and simulation of a standard 60 cell module under the same shaded conditions should be included for comparison.
Are the differences in the simulation and measurements also observed for 60 cell module?
Also the cell temperature will be higher than the temperature measured on the back of the module. this may account for some of the differences between simulation and measurement.
There appears to be a large difference in fill factor between measured and simulated - this is not adequately explained.
If these items are addressed it would improve the overall paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
the authors claim to replace a block in Matlab Simulink and verify their simulation through the experimental tests.
the language of this paper is fluent and is easy to read and follow. they replaced a set of 6 series solar block into two parallel blocks where each group has 3 series solar unit in it (half block). this is not a significant improvement nor is novel even though the simulation is verified by actual test. was better to show the original block alongside the new block for comarison.
in general, the results make sense but the method is not novel.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is written well, few edits need to be carried out,
page 3: line 81; insert "to" after corresponds
page 5: line 124; (where the bases with wires)?
page 6: line 142: STC "conditions" remove "conditions"
: line 145; FF factor, remove factor
: line 146; insert "that" after with
: line 166; remove conditions after STC
page 9: line 198; remove conditions after STC
Author Response
Reviewer proposed seven changes to the article text that the author accepts. Proposed changes have been included in the revised version of the manuscript (using the "Track Changes" function in Microsoft Word).
Note two: wording: "(where the bases with wires)?" - has been removed as an unnecessary additional definition of the back of the PV module.
Changes in lines: 76, 86, 129, 147, 150, 151, 175, 225.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
as mentioned by yourself, this work could not be considered very novel. but could get credit for experimental verification. it is recommended that the author highlight this aspect of the work more.
