Emergency Power Supply Restoration Strategy for Distribution Network Considering Support of Microgrids with High-Dimensional Dynamic Correlations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article proposes an emergency power supply restoration strategy for distribution network considering support of microgrids with high-dimensional dynamic correlations. The presented proposal is a response to the existing research gap.  

I definitely think that the presented proposal is innovative and solves the existing research gap.  

 

In the case of the subject of this article, it is not easy and unambiguous to determine. Researchers in this area adopt various modifications of the structures/topologies of power grids (research material), which makes it difficult to clearly define the benefits proposed by the authors compared to other methods available in the literature. Therefore, in order to answer this question, I would suggest the authors add a comparison with other methods available in the literature, using the same power grid model that was used to evaluate the proposed approach.  

 

In terms of methodology, for me there is no clear definition of the structure of the power grid used, i.e. types and characteristics of loads, exact technical parameters of individual generation sources.  

 

The final conclusions are very concise. They do not include an in-depth analysis of the conducted research and do not include generalizations in relation to other methods available in the literature.  

 

The subject of the research is very current and popular, and thus is relevant and interesting. However, looking at the cited 23 references, this definitely does not indicate that the authors conducted an in-depth literature review. I propose that the authors carry out a more extensive literature analysis by adding at least 20 bibliographic items, which will allow the presentation of a wide state of art in the field of the subject matter presented in the article.  

 

Figures are very difficult to analyze. Of course, there are shortcomings at the editorial level, such as: the use of different font sizes (if possible, one font size should be used, not smaller than the caption under the figure) or the use of thin lines. However, there are also gaps in transparency. For example, the proposal to present the results in Fig. 9 does not contribute anything. The waveforms are completely overlap in the individual sections, and the colors used are nowhere defined. In conclusion, there is a lack of a good presentation of the research that will support the analysis presented by the authors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our previous submission. We have thoroughly reviewed your comments and suggestions, and we appreciate the time and effort you have put into providing them. In response to your feedback, we have prepared a detailed response document addressing each of the points raised in your review.

We sincerely hope that you find our response document satisfactory and that it demonstrates our commitment to addressing the issues you have raised. Should you have any further questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. We remain appreciative of your guidance and look forward to your continued expert evaluation.

Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Ji Han

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate all the authors for submitting the good work to Electronics journal. However there are some issues need to be addressed for increasing the readability of your work. In this aspect some suggestions/improvements are given in the pdf file attached. (File name: Reviewer Report-electronics-2455884)

1.  Authors are suggested to avoid using repetitive words in the same sentence (See the word “considering” in line 14, 15).

2.      Check the format of reference numbers from lines 29-42 in introduction section. ( Format must be Ref [1] but not Ref^[1] )

3.      It is suggested to use “Fig. 1” in the middle of the sentence except in the beginning of sentence.

4.      Please avoid unwanted capitalization in the middle of the sentences.

5.      Check the font of all the equations in the manuscript it should be uniform and also the terms defined in all equations are also to be corrected (For ex: check the font of Eq. (1) to Eq. (4) and remaining equations).

6.      It is seriously informed to check all the parameters defined in the equations are defined or not throughout the manuscript (Ex: Check Eq. (4), what are these w_i, x_t?)

7.      Check the font of the terms x₁, x₂ … etc. in the lines form 263-286.

8.      Justify what is the difference between the terms and

9.      In this work authors considered micro gas turbines, solar and wind as energy sources, but “this paper takes wind power as an example and introduces dynamic Copula theory and vine Copula theory” to establish a new energy uncertainty model that considers high-dimensional dynamic correlation”, justify the statement why only wind source is considered.

10.  Check in some places authors used Eq. (11) and in some places authors used equation (11) see line 392 and 394, similarly check line 475,  likewise change the same corrections throughout the manuscript.

11.  Check lines 442, 517 change the term Chapter 4 by Section 4

12.  Eq. (34) to Eq. (43) are not reflected in the description part please check it.

13.  Check the clarity of figures.

14.  What is the unit of time scale in Fig. 12

15.  Authors mention time periods from 1 to 9 etc…. what it means is it in sec/min/hrs that has to be mentioned from 649 onwards.

16.   Comparison with other methods in existing literature is missing.

17.  Check the grammar and typos in the manuscript. 

18. Check the references format, references must be in MDPI format

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

I found that minor English language corrections required to your manuscript before publishing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our previous submission. We have thoroughly reviewed your comments and suggestions, and we appreciate the time and effort you have put into providing them. In response to your feedback, we have prepared a detailed response document addressing each of the points raised in your review.

We sincerely hope that you find our response document satisfactory and that it demonstrates our commitment to addressing the issues you have raised. Should you have any further questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. We remain appreciative of your guidance and look forward to your continued expert evaluation.

Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Ji Han

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank all the authors for addressing all my concerns.