24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 4963  |  回复: 12

西子枫林

铁虫 (小有名气)

[交流] IEEE 审稿意见回来了,大家帮我看看,有几点想咨询下各位已有5人参与

2014年11月26号投的,昨天给的意见,如下
——————————————————————————————————
Dear Authors:

Based on peer reviews, we have determined that your paper might be of interest for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery after revisions that have properly addressed the concerns of the reviewers and editor.

Please note that this is NOT a conditional acceptance of your paper and the revised version could still be rejected. It is, rather, recognition by our reviewers and editors that your paper merits further consideration.

Please note the following when preparing and submitting your revision:

1.        You shall submit your revision within 6 weeks (for first revision) or 4 weeks (for subsequent revisions). Under exceptional cases, you may be granted an extension.

2.        Please implement as many improvements as possible in the revised paper following the reviewers’ comments, as the future readers will only have access to your paper, not your response to the reviewers. You must mark changes made in a DIFFERENT COLOUR to facilitate the next round of review.

3.        In addition, you shall submit a response to the reviewer comments. It is important to address each comment POINT-BY-POINT in your response file and to cover all the comments. If you don’t agree with some of the comments, please present your reasons to convince the reviewers.

4.        You may use the cover letter to provide confidential comments to the editor. This shall be used ONLY for EXCEPTIONAL CASES where there is a fundamental disagreement or concern with one of the reviewer’s comments and you are not comfortable to share your concerns with the reviewer. If you decide to provide confidential comments, indicate in your regular response file that you have additional comments to the editor in the Cover Letter. You may color this statement so that the editor can identify it easily.

5.        The revised paper must not exceed 8 pages. Under exceptional cases, a maximum of two extra pages may be granted with the consent of Editor-in-Chief. In case you are short of pages, you may use the response file (which has no page limit) to address the concerns of the reviewers in more detail.

6.        The editorial board discourages multi-rounds of revisions. It is the responsibility of the authors to bring a paper to acceptable level within one or two rounds of reviews. The reviewers have no obligation to improve a paper for the authors.

Finally, I would like to encourage you to contribute to PWRD paper review in the future. Note that three or four volunteer reviewers have made it possible for your paper to be processed by the editorial board.

Please don’t reply to this email unless you have specific questions requiring my attention.

Sincerely yours,

Prof. Wilsun Xu
Editor-in-Chief, Transactions on Power Delivery


COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS:

Editor's Comments:

Editor
Editor Comments for Author:
(There are no comments. Please check to see if comments were included as a file attachment with this e-mail or as an attachment in your Author Center.)

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author
Some of the terminology needs to be updated in the current paper:
free frequency should be natural frequency, inter-phase shunt inductance should be mutual inductance.

General editing is required to clean up the language: eg. research object should be research objective. What does "integral criteria for fault nature determination" mean or what does "transition impedance" refer to?

The authors are advocating multi-phase opening and reclosing on parallel circuits. There are many examples of successful high speed single pole trip and reclose and some high speed three-phase trip and reclose. Have the authors found any references where two phases have been opened and reclosed either on one circuit or on parallel circuits? Are there any potential unbalance issues for the network? Is any care needed in selection of the neutral reactor to ensure successful arc extinction? A typical neutral reactor would be tuned for the single pole open case.

Sensitivity of the method to the assumed initial point of time (Page 4) has been noted as a limitation. The recommendation was made to add a delay and calculate a second integral value. Discussion should be added regarding the selection of the delay as well as demonstration of the security of the approach with the delay.

How does the method respond to an evolving fault? In other words, a single phase fault that becomes a phase-phase fault during the open time.

Are there issues with high impedance faults or with faults with varying fault resistances (arcing)?

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
The reviewer thinks that this manuscript demonstrates an interesting approach. Some issues are described below where the authors should address on them.

Editorial Comments:

In general the formatting is good. There should be line spaces before and after equations. The figures should be clear and readable on the black and white printouts. The authors should spend on time on making it better while not using more space.  The authors may wish to provide up to 10 index terms according to the latest rules. Since the authors are demonstrating lots of equations, a nomenclature section may be an option. It should be Table instead of Tab.

Technical comments:

1. The introduction is well-written. It clearly shows the current state of art and challenges, as well as a detailed literature review. In addition, the reviewer understands that State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC) has issued some rules in 2005 regarding reclosure requirements for parallel transmission lines. Perhaps the authors may wish to add one or two paragraph briefly explain the background why it is necessary for doing this in China and how the approach in this manuscript would fit. This may increase the value of the paper.

2. Some of the background information in the formulation seems to be fundamental. The authors may wish to make Section II in a more compact format.

3. The reviewer understands that the authors are attempting to present as many results as possible, but the way how thing are organized in Section IV-B is not very readable. The pictures are small and not very well-readable, particularly on the printouts. The authors need to make it more organized as well as the texts so that it is more readable. Keep in mind that a sufficient example of results should illustrate the authors’ contributions.

4. Conclusion section is not written very well. Keep in mind that the conclusions are used to reflect the contributions of the authors’ rather than a summary.


In summary, the approach seems to be interesting but the concerns above should be addressed.


Reviewer: 3

Comments to the Author
This paper presents an adaptive reclosure scheme via combining fault nature determination and sequential reclosing.  While the topic could be novel, the presentation quality is poor and the paper needs a complete rewrite to make it presentable.  
A. Technical
1. The authors state “However, since space between the lines is respectively small, there might be more complicated faults such as cross-line fault and interphase fault other than ground fault.”  - do they have a citation for this?  What is currently done in such situations?  

2. the authors state the following in the introduction, this reviewer thinks they should make it more clear what they are doing:
a. “Dynamic simulation experiment results of proposed scheme prove that the method is able to avoid influences of fault location, transition impedance and load current, and is able to correctly respond to all operation conditions and fault types, such as permanent and temporary metallic fault or fault with transition impedance, and single line operation mode or parallel line operation mode.”
aa. what exactly is meant by “dynamic simulation experiment”?  
ab. This is an incredibly long sentence, the authors could and should make it multiple sentences
ac. It’s not exactly clear what the authors are claiming to have done…

3. why is the admittance matrix (eqn. 2) in the specified format?  

4. Equations are largely uncited and of dubious provenance.  It is not clear what is the authors’ original work and what is in literature.

5. Why is eqn. 33 scaled by 1/3?

6. Figure 4 is not the easiest to view, the fonts and sizes should be improved

7. What happens if Figs. 4, 6,7  are viewed in black and white??  

8. The authors state: “A prototype device based on the scheme proposed in this paper was built by Nanjing Electric Automation Equipment Factory, and has been put in testing.” So what?  How is this performing.  Do you have meaningful results?  Or a citation?  By itself this is a pointless contribution.  

B. Referencing
1. “According to statistics, most line faults are temporary, reclosure is applied to ensure rapid recovery of power supply.” – what statistics?  Such statements need evidence
2. No citations are available for Admittance matrices (eqn. 2)?
3. Largely no citations appear in II or III, this is troubling.  
C. Writing and style
Medium to relatively poor quality with respect to writing:
1. “This paper takes parallel lines with shunt reactors as research object…” should be “as a”
2.  “…analyzes free-frequency component…” should probably be “components”
3.  “Take many actual 500kV parallel transmission lines as case study, free-frequency can be calculated as 30~40Hz.” Means what?  
4. “According to Laplace Theory, free-frequency value of terminal voltage on fault phase can be calculated by following characteristic polynomial” – Laplace theory?  I’m not familiar with that term.  Do the authors mean Laplace Principal (not really appropriate here) or Laplace’s methods (probably the one).  A citation would be helpful, even if it’s a basic math book so a reader knows what you are doing.

Some figures are very poor in quality, e.g. Figure 2 is impossible to read

Reviewer: 4

Comments to the Author
The authors analyze a methodology for determining whether a fault in a double circuit overhead power line is temporary or permanent. In order to do that, they utilize the existence (or absence) of resonant voltages between the distributed line capacitances and the respective shunt reactors used for reactive power compensation. Subsequently, they propose and simulate a respective reclosing scheme.
The paper concept is sound, and the general paper structure is good. However, the problem of the paper is the use of English, regarding basically syntax (e.g. a lot of essential articles is missing, and there are sentences that are difficult to follow due to bad syntax) and wrong usage of words (e.g. the word "deducted" is wrongly used instead of "deduced" at several places, and in my opinion the term "resonant frequency" should be used instead of "free frequency" ).  Also, the authors use frequently values coming from their own experience. They should however define the basic characteristics of the power systems they are experienced in, as the values used may not be universal. For example, in p. 2, column 2, line 44, it is mentioned that the resonant frequencies in 500 kV parallel transmission lines will be 30-40 Hz. This is true in 50 Hz power systems, but the respective frequencies will be somewhat higher for 60 Hz systems.


--
************************************

关于修改我有几点疑问:

1)一定要上传word吗?主要是word自动转的pdf图片不太清楚,而且段落里的公式符号会导致行距的改变,所以我后期想改latex,但是latex不知道各种修改模式的标注会不会较困难?
2)其中一个审稿专家提出来如果图片是黑白的怎么办,我在想power delivery 不是有论文是彩色的吗?如果要表示三相电流的波形,不是彩色的怎么实现的了啊?
3)修改意见回复的格式哪里有吗?一般修改回答多少页?我准备搞个7到8页没问题吧
4)有一些关于社会价值方面的问题,这种怎么回答啊?我觉得很明显有价值的。。如
8The authors state: “A prototype device based on the scheme proposed in this paper was built by Nanjing Electric Automation Equipment Factory, and has been put in testing.” So what?  How is this performing.  Do you have meaningful results?  Or a citation?  By itself this is a pointless contribution.  
这种。。。

谢谢,多多交流
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
回帖支持 ( 显示支持度最高的前 50 名 )

eexxyy

金虫 (小有名气)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
1、可以上传latex,修改文章一般都不用修订模式吧
2、power delivery 在线版都是彩色的 就是自己打印出来用黑白打印机肯定是黑白版的赛
3、没有格式,页数根据问题,很多情况下都有回答超过10页,7-8页不算多
4、专业问题无法帮助,呵呵,祝好。

觉得大多审稿人都是中国人呢,呵呵,竟然还有用害羞的笑脸的,真亲民
祝好
2楼2015-01-20 11:42:02
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

moonglaive

木虫 (正式写手)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
看起来楼主是搞输电线路继保的,国网继保的规定我不太清楚,不过你能说清楚为什么国网并行线路重合闸要在2005年出台新规定就更好(交代一下背景,原理可以不用说);一般样机摆出来就要有测试结果才行,你说这个“南自”生产的有什么意义。。。谁做不都是一样,关键是这个东西做出来的应用效果怎么样,如果文中能够体现就更有说服力。

有关IEEE Latex的格式可以参考这个文档
http://muchong.com/bbs/attachment.php?tid=5211412&aid=17658
8楼2015-01-22 11:25:44
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通回帖

西子枫林

铁虫 (小有名气)

引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by eexxyy at 2015-01-20 11:42:02
1、可以上传latex,修改文章一般都不用修订模式吧
2、power delivery 在线版都是彩色的 就是自己打印出来用黑白打印机肯定是黑白版的赛
3、没有格式,页数根据问题,很多情况下都有回答超过10页,7-8页不算多
4、 ...

该期刊杂志纸质版的是彩色的吧,审稿人应该是有中国人,英语也是各种不通
3楼2015-01-20 13:24:32
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

水渺渺0静

铜虫 (小有名气)

4个审稿人?
学会淡定
4楼2015-01-20 15:52:44
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

西子枫林

铁虫 (小有名气)

引用回帖:
4楼: Originally posted by 水渺渺0静 at 2015-01-20 15:52:44
4个审稿人?

是的!
5楼2015-01-20 16:16:25
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

水渺渺0静

铜虫 (小有名气)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
引用回帖:
5楼: Originally posted by 西子枫林 at 2015-01-20 16:16:25
是的!

我也在纠结文章 ,加油
学会淡定
6楼2015-01-20 16:21:17
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

eexxyy

金虫 (小有名气)


小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
引用回帖:
3楼: Originally posted by 西子枫林 at 2015-01-20 13:24:32
该期刊杂志纸质版的是彩色的吧,审稿人应该是有中国人,英语也是各种不通...

纸质版 如果你需要时彩色的需要没一幅图另外给很多钱 如果不想给 则是在线PDF版是彩色的 纸质版是黑白的。 不过你等真正录用后再考虑这个事情吧
7楼2015-01-20 20:34:27
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

西子枫林

铁虫 (小有名气)

引用回帖:
8楼: Originally posted by moonglaive at 2015-01-22 11:25:44
看起来楼主是搞输电线路继保的,国网继保的规定我不太清楚,不过你能说清楚为什么国网并行线路重合闸要在2005年出台新规定就更好(交代一下背景,原理可以不用说);一般样机摆出来就要有测试结果才行,你说这个“南 ...

恩,是的,写文章嘛有些时候还是会模范其他的文章的,主要是看到以前葛耀中老师的一篇文章,最后也提了下南自已经生产样机。。
非常感谢
9楼2015-01-22 12:36:43
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

西子枫林

铁虫 (小有名气)

已经录用了,谢谢各位
10楼2015-04-14 11:02:51
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 西子枫林 的主题更新
最具人气热帖推荐 [查看全部] 作者 回/看 最后发表
[论文投稿] ACS AMI 返回审稿意见,一个大修,两个据稿,编辑给的修改重投 +3 智商已更新 2024-06-19 3/150 2024-06-19 10:54 by asdfgjiiuh
[考博] 34岁读博士晚吗 +35 emitdne 2024-06-13 35/1750 2024-06-19 10:10 by xiaoxiao136
[硕博家园] 关于硕博连读的一些疑问? +8 Lwenter 2024-06-14 10/500 2024-06-19 10:00 by qingdao001
[论文投稿] 审稿人含糊拒稿,还需要回复吗?如何回复? 20+4 BruceChum 2024-06-15 22/1100 2024-06-19 08:00 by kanyechris
[精细化工] 试剂价格 +4 旭必上岸 2024-06-17 4/200 2024-06-18 23:58 by 又幂青松顶
[找工作] 杭电、天津科技、青农和宁波工程学院如何选? +12 味道很好啊 2024-06-13 24/1200 2024-06-18 23:09 by 药材
[基金申请] F口信息学部拿面上,大概需要什么样的成果 +7 _奋黎_ 2024-06-16 15/750 2024-06-18 22:30 by blueearth171
[找工作] 初始合伙人来啦!(生物试剂耗材标准品) +14 欢快的小科研人 2024-06-15 25/1250 2024-06-18 20:35 by 小飞来虫
[基金申请] 希望今年自己国自然面上项目和老婆青年项目能中! +8 恐龙爸爸 2024-06-14 8/400 2024-06-18 19:57 by 3115321
[考博] 2025考博 +8 自强不息a?a 2024-06-15 13/650 2024-06-18 18:12 by 投必得科研顾问
[有机交流] 跑板能跑开,过柱过不纯怎么办 +4 小胡在努力 2024-06-18 6/300 2024-06-18 15:20 by long8811
[硕博家园] 博士毕业高校和就业的相关问题 +7 SCITOPPP 2024-06-14 11/550 2024-06-18 07:51 by yinxing1995
[论文投稿] 论文已接收,但发现修改稿传的是旧版该怎么办? +3 zsq54321 2024-06-15 6/300 2024-06-17 19:45 by wjykycg
[基金申请] 面青地会评时间 +8 tanjydd 2024-06-15 8/400 2024-06-17 17:08 by 小龙虾2008
[有机交流] 车间生产,真空度很高,温度很高,但减压蒸馏速度很慢。 10+12 召唤鬼泣lL 2024-06-13 38/1900 2024-06-17 16:46 by 科研虫子小助手
[论文投稿] 二审返修送审10天了,原来一审的3个审稿人只有2个接受了审稿,会邀请新审稿人么? 50+3 huanpo116 2024-06-15 5/250 2024-06-16 10:27 by bobvan
[基金申请] E12面上申请 +4 汉风之遗 2024-06-13 4/200 2024-06-14 15:28 by 天外飞去来
[基金申请] 国自然基金公布的时候基金号有吗 +8 潇洒怡惜 2024-06-13 11/550 2024-06-14 11:24 by JRfei
[基金申请] 工材E10口函评结束了吗 10+3 我1的飞翔 2024-06-13 5/250 2024-06-14 06:35 by nono2009
[论文投稿] 摩擦磨损论文投稿 +3 jmysan 2024-06-12 3/150 2024-06-13 08:36 by 莱茵润色
信息提示
请填处理意见