Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
by
  • Ahmed Vall Hemeyine1,*,
  • Ahmed Abbou1 and
  • Sidi Mohamed ould Mohamed El Moustapha2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript compared the Fuzzy logic concepts of two new and classical schemes in the prospects of the variable wind speed turbines. The idea seems to be well suitable presented by the authors. In my specific comments, the manuscript needs major improvements for publication in this journal.

  1. The abstract section of the manuscript lacks clarity in multiply ways. For example, the words such as “fast”, “robust” and “better” in the abstract section must have liaison with some meaningful quantification of the presented model (IT-2 FLC).
  2. The selection of abbreviations and terminologies are not consistent throughout the manuscript, e.g., (DFI generator) or DFIG, WEC-System, or WECS. Likewise, in line 251→, “the power of the coefficient” needs to be “power coefficient”. Kindly carefully verify all the other such inconsistencies and revise the manuscript accordingly.
  3. Section 3 (Simulation results) is only describing the simulation results which is quite surprising for the readers. Because every research finding must carry some logical explanation and in-depth discussion. The authors are advised to revise the simulation section by providing the related discussion comprehensively.
  4. The manuscript overall lacks the proper sentence formation and conciseness mandatory for technical writing in research. Additionally, it has numerous grammatical mistakes (line 198 →we will is used), (line 200 →bloc diagram). Need complete revision for the English language.
  5. There is a need to present a few model limitations of the presented fuzzy logic particularly from the viewpoint of the variable speed wind turbines. Secondly, the modeling section is lengthy and reducing the impact of the overall design solution. Need a revision.
  6. Finally, the conclusion section is repeating the same facts that already have been described in the results section. Herein, need a revision in terms of the future course of action and new information (new findings, etc).

Author Response

     The Review Report (Reviewer 1)

 

1-   The abstract section of the manuscript lacks clarity in multiply ways. For example, the words such as “fast”, “robust” and “better” in the abstract section must have liaison with some meaningful quantification of the presented model (IT-2 FLC).

  • Dear reviewer, I would like to thank you for your interesting comments.
  • It is done, the proposed technique benefits are explained. Also, the abstract section is detailed according to this comment.

 

2-   The selection of abbreviations and terminologies are not consistent throughout the manuscript, e.g., (DFI generator) or DFIG, WEC-System, or WECS. Likewise, in line 251→, “the power of the coefficient” needs to be “power coefficient”. Kindly carefully verify all the other such inconsistencies and revise the manuscript accordingly.

  • We appreciate the reviewer’s query. The manuscript is modified and above suggesting is accommodated.

3-   Section 3 (Simulation results) is only describing the simulation results which is quite surprising for the readers. Because every research finding must carry some logical explanation and in-depth discussion. The authors are advised to revise the simulation section by providing the related discussion comprehensively.

  • Thank you for the valuable comment. The simulation results section is more detailed according to this comment.

4-   The manuscript overall lacks the proper sentence formation and conciseness mandatory for technical writing in research. Additionally, it has numerous grammatical mistakes (line 198 →we will is used), (line 200 →bloc diagram). Need complete revision for the English language.

  • The paper has been carefully revised to improve the grammar and errors has been corrected and marked red in revised manuscript.

5-   There is a need to present a few model limitations of the presented fuzzy logic particularly from the viewpoint of the variable speed wind turbines. Secondly, the modeling section is lengthy and reducing the impact of the overall design solution. Need a revision.

  • The simulation results are done with a variable speed wind turbine to show the limitations of the proposed fuzzy logic controller.

 

6-   Finally, the conclusion section is repeating the same facts that already have been described in the results section. Herein, need a revision in terms of the future course of action and new information (new findings, etc).

  • The conclusion section is more detailed according to this comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have the following minor comments for the study.

Comments:

  1. The title must be shortened. The significant findings should be added in the last of the abstract.
  2. The abstract must be rewritten carefully to show the necessity of this research, novelty, contribution, and significant findings.
  3. The introduction and literature review should be separated.
  4. The introduction should contain the model's contribution with the exact research gap. The research gap should be adequately explained.
  5. See the paper “Fuzzy φ-tolerance competition graphs; Generalized fuzzy trees” and cite them and make the author contribution table like this paper.
  6. Write the managerial insights correctly. Do not use we/our/us throughout the study. Replace those sentences in other ways.
  7. Make the comparative study with the exiting research to show what is the novelty in this model.
  8. The proper extension of this paper with proper references should be added at the end of the conclusions. Recent references should be added to make it more reader-friendly.

 

 

Author Response

The Review Report (Reviewer 2)

 

  • The title must be shortened. The significant findings should be added in the last of the abstract.
  • Thank you very much for your careful review. We have modified the title of the manuscript and mentioned the keyword in the last of the abstract.

 

  • The abstract must be rewritten carefully to show the necessity of this research, novelty, contribution, and significant findings.
  • Thank you for the suggestion. The change has been made in the abstract to show the contribution of this paper.

3- The introduction and literature review should be separated.

  • Thank you for this important observation. We have separate the introduction and literature in the manuscript.

 

  • The introduction should contain the model's contribution with the exact research gap. The research gap should be adequately explained.
  • Thank you for the suggestion. We have reviewed and add more detailed in introduction according to this comment.

 

  • See the paper “Fuzzy φ-tolerance competition graphs; Generalized fuzzy trees” and cite them and make the author contribution table like this paper.
  • Thank you for asking. The mentioned reference has been added in the paper.
  •  
  • Write the managerial insights correctly. Do not use we/our/us throughout the study. Replace those sentences in other ways.
  • The manuscript is modified and above suggesting is accommodated.

 

7-   Make the comparative study with the exiting research to show what is the novelty in this model.

  • Thank you for the suggestion. We have already done in this paper the performance comparison of the Type-1 and interval Type-2 fuzzy logic controller. The difference between these controllers is more explained. Also, the robustness of the proposed controller is more explained.

 

8-   The proper extension of this paper with proper references should be added at the end of the conclusions. Recent references should be added to make it more reader-friendly.

  • It is done, thank you so much for your comments and the suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been revised according to the comments. The paper can be accepted after minor revisions including the followings.

1) Avoid using abbreviations like DFIG in the title of paper.

2) There are some typos and expression errors and they should be corrected 

 - In the title of paper, "based a DFIG" should be "based on DFIG"

Author Response

The Review Report

 Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

The paper has been revised according to the comments. The paper can be accepted after minor revisions including the followings.

  • Avoid using abbreviations like DFIG in the title of paper.
  • Dear reviewer, I would like to thank you for your interesting comments.
  • The manuscript is modified and above suggesting is accommodated.
  • There are some typos and expression errors and they should be corrected.

- In the title of paper, "based a DFIG" should be "based on DFIG.

  • Thank you very much for your careful review. We have modified the title of the manuscript.

Title:  A Robust Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic control for Variable Speed Wind Turbines Based on Doubly Fed Induction Generator

Title: A Robust Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic control for a Variable Speed

Wind Turbine Based a DFI-Generator