两个审稿意见差别大,重投后接收的希望大不?如何回复意见?谢谢
Your paper was carefully reviewed by the authorized reviewers of the IEEJ Transactions. Result is C (Reevaluation after Referral). Please note that you are requested to respond to all comments by the reviewers when you resubmit the paper.
The inquiries and comments are as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[Reviewer "A"] Result = B(Conditional Acceptance)
[Reviewer "D"] Result = D(Reject)
------------------------------------------
Reviewer A
You should take a restraint characteristics of current differential protection relay into consideration to show that this paper is useful.
------------------------------------------
Reviewer D
This paper presents the capacitive current compensation that affects the sensitivity of the current differential protection relay under the complex four transmission lines on the same tower. However, this method is only calculate the symmetrical components of capacitive currents in various cases, it is easy to derive the compensation current under the given capacitance parameters. The simulation is also only a circuit calculation under the conditions of the given capacitance values, and it does not indicate the effectiveness of the proposed method. Hence, this paper is in an insufficient state at the point of the originality and impact to the field. Therefore, my judgement is D.
-P.4 Line 9 and 19: The description of "equation (13)" seems to be "equation (9)".
-Chap 4 Fig.5-Fig.13, Table 1: Since the detail simulation conditions are unknown, the validity of the results are not clear. Furthermore, the legend of the graph overlaps on the lines, the results are unknown.
-P.7 Table1: It is not clear which column of "Compensated on four circuit" is on operation mode M2.
返回小木虫查看更多
京公网安备 11010802022153号
楼主的作者里面有没有member?这个期刊对member是不是硬性要求
,