| 查看: 5010 | 回复: 12 | |||
[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
国基资助率最新消息
已经有14人回复
-
对会评和中标过程讲得最清楚的一份材料
已经有5人回复
-
家乡新一线城市双非一本还是沿海三线211
已经有16人回复
-
今年国家社科基金会评开始了吗？大概什么时候会评结束呢？
已经有6人回复
-
基金评审改成双盲很难吗？
已经有13人回复
-
科研之友函评到会评前有论文阅读，但没访问记录
已经有35人回复
-
今年国基资助率12%，普通高校的人要申请八次才能中一次
已经有73人回复
-
单位里的杂事儿，轮着来，不要总是找几个人
已经有4人回复
-
92年辅导员何去何从？
已经有7人回复
-
在高校中年教授如何才能躺平？
已经有18人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- polymer chemistry 审稿意见回来了，一些问题解决不了。请教各位
已经有7人回复
- IEEE审稿意见，还有希望吗？
已经有37人回复
- 请大家帮我分析下审稿意见
已经有18人回复
- 关于《电网技术》论文一审意见回来修改后还需要再给专家审稿吗？
已经有8人回复
- 文章的审稿意见回来了，觉得审稿人意见有问题，想写argue，请教怎么写argue
已经有9人回复
- 投稿JMCC，12天返回来审稿意见，大家给分析一下
已经有22人回复
- 大家帮看一下这个审稿意见棘手不，谢谢了。
已经有22人回复
- 急，大家看看我这审稿意见有戏吗？？
已经有32人回复
- 审稿意见回来，要不要改投还是要申诉，给位虫友给个意见啊，现在好乱
已经有13人回复
- 审稿意见回来了，心里有点酸！！大家帮忙看看！
已经有42人回复
- 审稿意见回来了，论文该如何修改？
已经有31人回复
- 求助！！SCI审稿意见回来了，提了很多意见，不太清楚需要后续步骤！
已经有23人回复
- IEEE EDL的审稿意见，大家看看。
已经有12人回复
- 编辑已经催了审稿人5次 依然不返回审稿意见 大家遇到过这种情况么
已经有50人回复
- 审稿意见回来了，我该怎么处理？
已经有57人回复
- 审稿意见已回，大家给看看
已经有9人回复
- 补充下审稿意见，大家看看JACS申诉胜算多大？？
已经有15人回复
- JPCC一个审稿意见就给回来了
已经有16人回复
- 一审意见回来了，一个审稿人竭力推荐发表，另一个认为无新意...
已经有34人回复
- 审稿意见回来了，大家帮忙分析一下，有些意见看不懂？
已经有14人回复
- 散去所有金币，求大家帮我看看审稿意见，第一次投SCI。。。
已经有20人回复
- 看看航空动力学报的一位审稿人对于综述文章的审稿意见！
已经有10人回复
- 物理学报审稿意见，请大家帮忙看看录用几率多大？修改有哪些注意事项，谢谢了
已经有24人回复
- 论文审稿意见回来了，大家看看如何回复啊
已经有16人回复
- 审稿意见回来了，大家帮忙看一下。。
已经有9人回复
- 有关Angew的审稿问题，祈求大家的意见
已经有8人回复
- 文章的审稿意见，大家帮忙看看！
已经有6人回复
- 请大家帮忙看看如何回复审稿意见
已经有4人回复
- 论文一审回来了，有一些审稿意见，请大家帮我看看是什么意思。
已经有5人回复
2楼2015-01-20 11:42:02
moonglaive
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 8 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 4334.5
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 339
- 在线: 352.5小时
- 虫号: 950393
- 注册: 2010-01-29
- 专业: 电机与电器
★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
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
3楼2015-01-20 13:24:32
4楼2015-01-20 15:52:44
5楼2015-01-20 16:16:25
6楼2015-01-20 16:21:17
7楼2015-01-20 20:34:27
9楼2015-01-22 12:36:43
10楼2015-04-14 11:02:51
10