Electric Vehicles Charging Stations’ Architectures, Criteria, Power Converters, and Control Strategies in Microgrids

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper offers a valuable review of Electric charging station topologies.

What is still missing to make the paper a comphrensive review is the focus on the safety/reliability issue (i.e. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies9020028 and 
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9030510  among the other in the literature ). The paper should also consider this critical aspect to be valuable for publication.

Please in the reference list focus/cite more Electronics-MDPI papers on the same topic (i.e.  https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10131593 ) or also other from IEEE (i.e. 10.1109/EMCEurope.2019.8872061 ,  10.1109/ISEMC.2015.7256257) focusing on the reliability issues.

Author Response

Answer to Reviewer reported attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is a very pertinent and the Authors have developed an original and interesting topic, full of ideas. Despite this, some integration and clarification are needed: for these reasons I have proposed a "major revision".

Some comments:

1. Section 1 “Introduction”: consider a slightly broader description.
2. Section 2.1 “Isolated DC microgrid for EV charging “is not clear: please explain better
3. Section 5 “Power Electronic Converters for Charging Stations” is not clear: please explain better
4. Section 9 “Conclusions”: this section is also too concise and schematic: please better focus the conclusions by highlighting the innovative part.

Minor comments:

1. Figure 1 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
2. Figure 2 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
3. Figure 7 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
4. Figure 9 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
5. Figure 10 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
6. Figure 11 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
7. Figure 12 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
8. Figure 13 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
9. Figure 14 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
10. Figure 15 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
11. Figure 16 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
12. Figure 17 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
13. Figure 19 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
14. Figure 22 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
15. Figure 23 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
16. Figure 24 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
17. Figure 25 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
18. Figure 26 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
19. Figure 27 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
20. Figure 28 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
21. Figure 29 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
22. Figure 30 is too little and not clear: please improve dimension and resolution
23. Table 1 is not clear: please increase the readability
24. Table 4 is not clear: please increase the readability
25. Table 6 is not clear: please increase the readability
26. Table 11 is not clear: please increase the readability
27. Table 13 is not clear: please increase the readability and improve dimensions and resolutions of the figures (circuits)
28. Table 14 is not clear: please increase the readability and improve dimensions and resolutions of the figures (circuits)
29. Table 15 is not clear: please increase the readability and improve dimensions and resolutions of the figures (circuits)
30. Table 16 is not clear: please increase the readability
31. Table 18 is not clear: please increase the readability
32. It is recommended an extensive reading to correct some sentences and typo errors.

Author Response

The Answer to reviewer report is attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is way too long and it provides no special knowledge to the field.

1. Two-third of the introduction contains only general statements.
2. A large portion of the paper discusses microgrids while the title says something else.
3. The reference citation is not accurate, I have checked references 36-40 (Table 6) and surprisingly none of these references have even mentioned charging station or EV once. 
4. I suspect the figures are not fully drawn by the authors and there is no reference to the source of the figures. In fact, pre-authorization is required to use figures from other authors.
5. I am not sure if the experiments were done by the authors. If yes, I am not clear what is the point of those experiments?
6.  There is a lot of general and shallow information about diverse topics. A more focused review with insights is preferred.
7. The challenges and opportunities section is considered as the core of a review paper. It is too short and difficult to find any substantial insights.

Author Response

Answer to Reviewer Report is attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted in present form

Author Response

Thank you for your recommendation.

Reviewer 3 Report

Most of my concerns are addressed. Please make the abstract also concise.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. Thank you for your recommendation and suggestions. As per your suggestion abstract is revised and Marked "Blue color " in the revised paper. 

Thank you once gain for your valuation suggestion to improve our paper.