Effects of Communication Signal Delay on the Power Grid: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Abstract section doesn’t provide information about problem selected. Abstract section must be in standard form.
- Present and previous work should be compared on the basis of their pros and cons.
- Figure 2 should be redrawn in more proper manner.
- A critical discussion of the obtained results are required.
- what is the basis for the selection of different selection criteria on the basis of which results are computed.
- Comparative analysis is missing between different techniques
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Abstract section doesn’t provide information about problem selected. Abstract section must be in standard form.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I’m going to add some features so that I can satisfy all the conditions that are required to be absolute
Point 2: Present and previous work should be compared on the basis of their pros and cons.
Response 2: You have raised an important point here. However, I hope I'm going to put it on the line as you gain wisdom and knowledge and it will be even better.
Point 3: Figure 2 should be redrawn in more proper manner.
Response 3: I agree with you that figure 2 is not perfect, and I agree with you that I have already changed the figure and when I use it now it is perfect.
Point 4: A critical discussion of the obtained results are required.
Response 3: I agree with you, I would like to advise and remind you of the shortcomings we have tried to add to make the paper more complete in terms of to the results obtained
Point 5: What is the basis for the selection of different selection criteria on the basis of which results are computed?
Response 3: The method we used involved comparing results from using Fuzzy controlled Br and without BR. As you can see from Table 12, transient state and state stability gave us a way to learn how to choose the best total kinetic energy in terms of how well a child would be safe and secure. We have even found that even with Time Response, fault clearance time and oscillation amplitude are gradually giving us a better choice.
Point 6: Comparative analysis is missing between different techniques
Response 3: Thank you for showing us what was missing. We agree that we will include another table showing a comparative analysis of different techniques.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript reviews the effects of communication signal delay on the power grid. The performance and quality of the electricity grid can be largely affected by the controlling signal delays caused by various reasons such as network, control algorithms and cyber-attacks. Because of the importance of the topic, a lot of works have been done. The manuscript covers most of the recent important literatures in this area. Different control strategies have been discussed such as sliding mode control, fuzzy logic control, neural network control, etc. The MATLAB/Simulink is also used to analyze the communication delay in the IEEJ West 10-mochine model system. Overall, the review fits the scope of Electronics, and it provides a guide to researcher in the field. I would recommend publication of the manuscript, but the language of the manuscript needs to be checked. There are some typos and grammar issues which confuses readers.
- Line 28: “such as power generation, distribution, distribution,” There are two “distribution”.
- Line 99: “According to Max,” I can’t find who is Max in the manuscript.
- Line 239: “And [53] in they assign us the problem” There is grammar issue in this sentence.
- Line 315: “The maximum delay to be assessed is 500 s.” Is it 500 s or 500 ms?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Abstract section doesn’t provide information about problem selected. Abstract section must be in standard form.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I’m going to add some features so that I can satisfy all the conditions that are required to be absolute
Point 2: Present and previous work should be compared on the basis of their pros and cons.
Response 2: You have raised an important point here. However, I hope I'm going to put it on the line as you gain wisdom and knowledge and it will be even better.
Point 3: Figure 2 should be redrawn in more proper manner.
Response 3: I agree with you that figure 2 is not perfect, and I agree with you that I have already changed the figure and when I use it now it is perfect.
Point 4: A critical discussion of the obtained results are required.
Response 3: I agree with you, I would like to advise and remind you of the shortcomings we have tried to add to make the paper more complete in terms of to the results obtained
Point 5: What is the basis for the selection of different selection criteria on the basis of which results are computed?
Response 3: The method we used involved comparing results from using Fuzzy controlled Br and without BR. As you can see from Table 12, transient state and state stability gave us a way to learn how to choose the best total kinetic energy in terms of how well a child would be safe and secure. We have even found that even with Time Response, fault clearance time and oscillation amplitude are gradually giving us a better choice.
Point 6: Comparative analysis is missing between different techniques
Response 3: Thank you for showing us what was missing. We agree that we will include another table showing a comparative analysis of different techniques.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors incorporated most of the concerns raised by the reviewer.
