Design, Assessment, and Modeling of Multi-Input Single-Output Neural Network Types for the Output Power Estimation in Wind Turbine Farms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is no proper flow of information in the paper. The introduction of the paper is having a very long paragraph, which is not split into sections for better comprehension. 

There is no model system of study showing wind turbines in a wind farm with detailed parameters for easy replication of the work. 

The paper did not consider both balanced and unbalanced faults analysis and also no dynamic analysis of the wind turbines for wind speeds having low and high wind regions. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language editing is required.

Author Response

We would like to thank you very much for reviewing our Manuscript automation-3052631entitled ‘Design, Assessment, and Modelling of Multi-Input Single-Output Neural Network Types for the Output Power Estimation in Wind Turbines Farm’, and for providing us fruitful comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work was done on an interesting topic and corresponds to the theme of Automation. But there are some serious issues that authors need to pay attention to before publishing.

The background needs some work. At the moment it looks very strange, most of the link's lead to publicly known information. From the source text I did not see that current forecasting methods and systems work poorly. There is also no understanding of the advantages of the proposed methods over existing ones.

Several comments apply to your data set:

— In accordance with international standards, wind measurements are carried out for at least one year, taking into account seasonal processes. In your case, the data set is from 10/31/2023 to 12/31/2023 (62 days). This is a very short period of time for the data to be used to create a serious tool.

— In your work you write that you received accurate data from the Gabal El Zeit wind farm, but your link is to https://power.larc.nasa.gov/data-access-viewer/. The accuracy of the data on this site itself is subject to error and will differ from actual data.

— It is also unclear how the adequacy of the data set was checked? Were there any outliers or anomalies in them?

It is not clear how you make a comparison in paragraph 6 with other works if the source data and model parameters are completely different.

There are no graphs with results in the work. I don't understand that these models actually have minimal prediction error.

Conclusions should be clear and concise and contain specific data obtained in the work.

All abbreviations must be transcribed separately.

Author Response

We would like to thank you very much for reviewing our Manuscript automation-3052631entitled ‘Design, Assessment, and Modelling of Multi-Input Single-Output Neural Network Types for the Output Power Estimation in Wind Turbines Farm’, and for providing us fruitful comments. Please accept our apologies for all the mistakes and confusion. We address each of the comments below. In the revised manuscript, paragraphs that have been added or significantly revised are highlighted in red colour.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English editing is required.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for the work done, the article has become more readable and can be published.