第一次投SCI：大修提交4个月后终于等来审稿意见，可是还是大修请问师兄师姐下面的审稿意见如何啊？修改对于审稿人1和2，主要是审稿人2如何说服啊？谢谢
Associate Editor

There are different opinions about this paper. The contributions of the paper remain unclear. The comparison with [29] should be justified. Simulation results need better organization and elaborations. A chance is provided to the authors to justify the work and additional reviewers may be assigned.

Reviewer 1

The contributions of the paper are not clearly presented. The significance of the proposed work as compared to [29] should be justified.

Reviewer 2

This paper proposes a distributed algorithm for the economic dispatch problem (EDP). It mainly studies the stochastic gradient-push method with asynchronous step-size and noisy gradient to deal with the finite delays in time-varying directed communication network of EDP. The author shows nice mathematical skills in presenting the results. However, the reviewer has to raise some questions about the model and algorithm in this study:
1.    Why not to include ramp-up and ramp-down limit constraint for units in the EDP model? Is the proposed algorithm applicable for an EDP model with time coupling constraints?
2.    The author should indicate the difference or improvement of the proposed algorithm in this study compared with reference [29].
3.    In introduction, the author mentioned ‘This work adopts asynchronous step-size, which provides a more flexible range for step-size.’ However, the advantage of asynchronous step-size is well displayed in Section 5.
4.    Numerical results in Section 5 should be simplified or reorganized. The author can just take one test system to analyze the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in detail (for instance, 4-bus system). Moreover, comparison results between different cases are recommended to present in a table format for a better display.

Reviewer 3

I have no further comments.

Reviewer 4

The revised paper can be accepted by minor revisions.

1. Please give the name, unit of the vertical coordinates for figures.
2. The literature review is not sufficient. Please refer to：3篇参考文献


审稿人2感觉是主要应对的对象！！！审稿人3的这个I have no further comments.怎么回复较妥？
2的意见有点多啊？怎么处理较妥，谢谢师兄师姐 返回小木虫查看更多