24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

【有奖交流】积极回复本帖子，参与交流，就有机会分得作者 lllqqq1100 的 8 个金币，回帖就立即获得 1 个金币，每人有 1 次机会

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

lllqqq1100

新虫 (小有名气)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 15.9
帖子: 84
在线: 19.5小时
虫号: 23184223

[交流] 投IEEE ACCESS，专家一个直接拒绝，一个拒接并鼓励重投，求各位给个指点。

萌新第一次投论文，结果是这样，不知道改咋办才好，心急如焚。下面是专家的审稿意见，第二个只有一句话，第一位的意见也不多。不知道接下来该怎么办，求指导。
I am writing to you in regards to manuscript # *******" which you submitted to IEEE Access.

Please note that IEEE Access has a binary peer review process. Therefore, in order to uphold quality to IEEE standards, an article is rejected even if it requires minor edits.

Your manuscript has not been recommended for publication in IEEE Access in its current form; however, we do encourage you to address the concerns and criticisms of the reviewers detailed at the bottom of this letter and resubmit your article once you have updated it accordingly.

Please revise your manuscript based on reviewers’ feedback and resubmit; elaborate on your points and clarify with references, examples, data, etc. If you do not agree with the reviewers’ views, then include your arguments in the updated manuscript. Also, note that if a reviewer suggested references, you should only add ones that will make your article better and more complete. Recommending references to specific publications is not appropriate for reviewers and you should report excessive cases to ieeeaccessEIC@ieee.org.

We highly recommend that you review the grammar one more time before resubmitting. IEEE offers a 3rd party service for language polishing, which you may utilize for a fee: https://www.aje.com/c/ieee (use the URL to claim a 10% discount).

Please be advised that authors are only permitted to resubmit their article ONCE. If the updated manuscript is determined not to have addressed all of the previous reviewers’ concerns, the article may be rejected and no further resubmissions will be allowed.

When resubmitting, please submit as a new manuscript and include the following 3 files:

1) A document containing your response to reviewers from the previous peer review. The “response to reviewers” document (template attached) should have the following regarding each comment: a) Reviewer’s concern, b) your response to the concern, c) your action to remedy the concern. The document should be uploaded with your manuscript files as a “Supplemental File for Review.”

2) Your updated manuscript with all your individual changes highlighted, including grammatical changes (e.g. preferably with the yellow highlight tool within the pdf file). This file should be uploaded with your manuscript files as a “Supplemental File for Review”.

3) A clean copy of the final manuscript (without highlighted changes) should be submitted as the “Formatted (Double Column) Main File – PDF Document Only.”

We sincerely hope you will update your manuscript and resubmit soon. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you for your interest in IEEE Access.

Sincerely,

Prof. Zhouyang Ren
Associate Editor, IEEE Access
rzhouyang1108@163.com, rzhouyang@gmail.com

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1

Recommendation: Reject (do not encourage resubmit)

Comments:
The paper is about DC voltage control of photovoltaic grid-connected inverter based on improved reduced-order linear active disturbance rejection, after the review I have some comments.
- LESO is not defined,
- Cg is not included in Fig.1
- Table I, the value of ex is rms or peak?
- The simulation results are in discrete time, but the analysis and design is performed in continuous time. How to ensure the system stability?
- To support the propose is necessary experimental results.

Additional Questions:
1) Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: The paper gives a some novel ideas for reduced the dynamic effects of the disturbances (sag/swell in grid voltage, irradance fluctuation, temperature in PV panels) in DC voltage bus in a grid connected inverter. But is not indicated, how DC voltage desviation affects to Cdc capacitor.

2) Is the paper technically sound?: The analysis of the controller is appropriate in continuous time, but in the sections IV and V, the analysis and design process is mixed the continuos and discrete time.

3) Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: The paper shown the matter in a comprehensive way, but is too large. Is necessary reduce the content of the paper.

4) Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: The references are well.

5) Are there references that are not appropriate for the topic being discussed?: No

5a) If yes, then please indicate which references should be removed.:

Reviewer: 2

Recommendation: Reject (updates required before resubmission)

Comments:
The experimental analysis should be provided in this manuscript for a power electronic system.

Additional Questions:
1) Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes

2) Is the paper technically sound?: Yes

3) Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Partially

4) Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Yes

5) Are there references that are not appropriate for the topic being discussed?: Yes

5a) If yes, then please indicate which references should be removed.:

If you have any questions, please contact article administrator: Miss Sweta Satapathy s.satapathy@ieee.org

回复此楼