Analysis of EMC Factors on Electronic Devices Using PLS-SEM Method: A Case Study in Vietnam
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The main aim of the this work is to present "Analysis of Factors Electromagnetic Compatibility on Electronic 2 Devices Using PLS-SEM Method: A Case Study in Vietnam". Few of the concerns are:
1. This work seems as a review paper but not an article. As in this work the literature work comparison has been discussed while the authors own contribution is somehow not justified. So as per the reviewer's opinion, this is review article. The authors should clear this point.
2. Moreover, the Figure 3 quality should be improved. As its blurry; and same throught the review paper.
Author Response
First, we would like to express our greatest gratitude to you, whose valuable comments made on this paper have significantly improved the quality of this paper. We have addressed all the comments made in the new version of the paper and will list the changed made item-by-item in response to these comments below.
Point 1: This work seems as a review paper but not an article. As in this work the literature work comparison has been discussed while the authors own contribution is somehow not justified. So as per the reviewer's opinion, this is review article. The authors should clear this point.
Response 1: Thanks a lot for your comments. We have checked and revised according to the reviewer's request. Please see Chapter 2 from page 3 to page 5
Point 2: Moreover, the Figure 3 quality should be improved. As its blurry; and same throught the review paper.
Response 2: Thanks a lot for your comments. We've seriously improved the clarity of the figure, please see Figure 3 on page 14.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments on “Analysis of Factors Electromagnetic Compatibility on Electronic Devices Using PLS-SEM Method: A Case Study in Vietnam”
It is a very interesting work about the EMC factors of IoTs devices in Vietnam. The authors do lots of work and the method is significant with high novelty. It is better to present the method part unambiguously for readers. A better way of stating these type tables could be seen in other published papers.
1. The title "analysis of EMC factors on "would be better.
2. Electro Magnetic and Electromagnetic should be consistent throughout the whole paper.
3. In the introduction part, it would be better to add the application or theory of the PLS-DMS in other domains.
4. The second part can move the literature review to the introduction part, and put the hypothesis at the beginning of section 3.
5. In line 305, according to the TCVN, QCVN represented by RCVN is better.
6. In line 302 and 323, there are two "3.1" subsection.
7. In line 325, the paper is missing Table B and line 551 it missed the Table B1.
Author Response
First, we would like to express our greatest gratitude to you, whose valuable comments made on this paper have significantly improved the quality of this paper. We have addressed all the comments made in the new version of the paper and will list the changed made item-by-item in response to these comments below.
Point 1: The title "analysis of EMC factors on "would be better.
Response 1: Thanks a lot for your comments. Many thanks for giving us a very good comment and We have revised. Please to see page 1.
Point 2: Electro Magnetic and Electromagnetic should be consistent throughout the whole paper.
Response 2: Thanks a lot for your comments. We have already checked and updated the word "Electromagnetic" to be consistent throughout the whole paper. Please pages 1, 3, 5, 6, 15, 17, 36, and 37.
Point 3: In the introduction part, it would be better to add the application or theory of the PLS-DMS in other domains.
Response 3: Thanks a lot for your comments. Our study is using PLS-SEM method. We think, Reviewer suggested we "add the application or theory of the PLS-SEM in other domains" and not PLS-DMS (Partial Least Squares Density Modeling System). and We consider it an interesting proposition. Please see page 3.
Point 4: The second part can move the literature review to the introduction part, and put the hypothesis at the beginning of section 3.
Response 4: Thanks a lot for your comments. We have revised at the suggestion of Reviewers. Please see page 3, 4
Point 5: In line 305, according to the TCVN, QCVN represented by RCVN is better.
Response 5: Thanks a lot for your comments. We have already revised it to RCVN. Please see page 7.
Point 6: In line 302 and 323, there are two "3.1" subsection.
Response 6: Thanks a lot for your comments. We have checked and revised. Please see page 10, 13
Point 7: In line 325, the paper is missing Table B and line 551 it missed the Table B1.
Response 7: Thanks a lot for your comments. We have checked and revised. Please see page 10, 16
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the article it is necessary to describe in more detail the essence of the method. Not just indicate expressions and figures, but conduct a comparative analysis of the methods used by the authors.
This applies to sections 3.3 and 3.4. it makes sense to reduce some of the material according to standards.
It is enough to provide references to standards in the article without describing them for 15-20 pages.
There are a great many works on the analysis of the requirements for the quality of electricity.
Please translate the standards sections into a literature review and shorten them to a page.
With such a presentation of the material, the reader does not understand what the scientific novelty of the results is.
Figures 2 and 3 need to be described in more detail, otherwise it is absolutely unclear how the results are related to the method that you presented in the article.
Similar to Figure 4. In the conclusions, general phrases are presented, which again refer to the standards, and not to the developed method.
The first paragraph describes how the developed method is functional and applicable in general to other sciences. There are no results in the work that could confirm this.
The conclusions in the article are in no way related to the material presented and the topic of the article. It is necessary to provide data of the system on which the research was carried out.
It is absolutely impossible to understand the object of research from the article. In more detail, the article requires significant improvements.
The work is devoted to the actual problem of electromagnetic compatibility in low voltage electrical networks with sources of distortion. The paper presents a comparative analysis of standards for the quality of electrical energy. Such work is essential for specialists who are engaged in standardization in the field of electric power quality. The amount of work presented in the article is huge, but there are spelling and grammatical errors that in no way diminish the results presented. The article is recommended for publication.
Author Response
First, we would like to express our greatest gratitude to you, whose valuable comments made on this paper have significantly improved the quality of this paper. We have addressed all the comments made in the new version of the paper and will list the changed made item-by-item in response to these comments below.
Point 1: In the article it is necessary to describe in more detail the essence of the method. Not just indicate expressions and figures, but conduct a comparative analysis of the methods used by the authors.
Response 1: Thanks a lot for your comments. We consider it an interesting proposition. Please see page 3.
Point 2: This applies to sections 3.3 and 3.4. it makes sense to reduce some of the material according to standards.
Response 2: Thanks a lot for your comments. Vietnam's EMC Management Standards and We download them from Vietnam's Law Library (https://vanbanphapluat.co). We request permission to keep the material according to standards
Point 3: It is enough to provide references to standards in the article without describing them for 15-20 pages.
Response 3: Thanks a lot for your comments. In this study, We performed an overall review of Vietnam's EMC management standards and This work seems like a review paper. We ask the reviewer's permission to keep it in this work.
Point 4: Please translate the standards sections into a literature review and shorten them to a page.
Response 4: Thanks a lot for your comments. The RTCV has been summarized and presented in the literature review at the request of the reviewer. Please see page 6, 7.
Point 5: With such a presentation of the material, the reader does not understand what the scientific novelty of the results is.
Response 5: The reviewer's comments were very helpful for our future research. We have briefly described the objectives of this study in the Introduction section. Please see page 3.
Point 6: Figures 2 and 3 need to be described in more detail, otherwise it is absolutely unclear how the results are related to the method that you presented in the article.
Response 6: Thanks a lot for your comments. We have reviewed the article and added more analysis about the model in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Please see page 13, 15
Point 7: Similar to Figure 4. In the conclusions, general phrases are presented, which again refer to the standards, and not to the developed method.
Response 7: Thanks a lot for your comments. We have reviewed the article and added more analysis about the model in Figure 4. Please see page 17
Point 8: The first paragraph describes how the developed method is functional and applicable in general to other sciences. There are no results in the work that could confirm this.
Response 8: Thanks a lot for your comments. The objectives of this research paper were added to the Introdution section and revised at the request of the reviewer. Please see page 3.
Point 9: The conclusions in the article are in no way related to the material presented and the topic of the article. It is necessary to provide data of the system on which the research was carried out.
Response 9: Thanks a lot for your comments. We have re-checked the entire content at the conclusion and updated it at the request of the reviewer. Please see page 16, 17, 18.
Point 10: It is absolutely impossible to understand the object of research from the article. In more detail, the article requires significant improvements.
Response 10: Thanks a lot for your comments. We have briefly described the objectives of this study in the Introduction section. Please see page 7.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version is improved.
Author Response
-
Reviewer 2 Report
“Analysis of EMC Factors on Electronic Devices Using PLS-SEM Method: A Case Study in Vietnam” does an interesting work about EMC factors on EDs and a case in Vietnam is studied. The quality of the presentation in this version is improved. If the dozens of tables in the appendix were neatly designed, which will be better understood by readers.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: “Analysis of EMC Factors on Electronic Devices Using PLS-SEM Method: A Case Study in Vietnam” does an interesting work about EMC factors on EDs and a case in Vietnam is studied. The quality of the presentation in this version is improved. If the dozens of tables in the appendix were neatly designed, which will be better understood by readers.
Response 1: Thanks a lot for your comments. We have checked and revised according to the reviewer's request, table A1 Brief summary of specific conditions of RCVN. Please see page 21, 22 and red word with highlight by yellow
