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，就有机会分得作者吼一刺儿的 10 个金币

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

吼一刺儿

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 152.8
帖子: 7
在线: 3.1小时
虫号: 2118308
注册: 2012-11-10
专业: 电力系统

[交流] IEEE trans on Power Delivery 一审意见，大修还是小修？接受的倾向怎么样？

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 pay attention to 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 under some exceptional cases. For example, there is a fundamental disagreement with a 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. You are recommended not to exceed 8 pages for the revised version. In the event you have to use more pages to address reviewer comments properly, you can add a maximum of two extra pages. Please provide a justification for the extra pages in your response file. Under no circumstances a revision can have more than 10 pages.

6. Comments in the form of attachments may not be sent by this email sometimes. So please check the account of submitting author for additional comments. If you only find comments from 1 or 2 reviewers for a R0 version paper, you may write to EIC to check if the comments are misplaced by the reviewer.

7. PWRD 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.

More information can be found from https://sites.ieee.org/tpwrd/

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-in-Chief's Comments:

Editor
Editor Comments for Author:
Give adequate answer to each one of questions raised by Reviewers.
The manuscript must be corrected by someone proficient in English grammar.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author
The article is written in an academic manner, it does not include a feasibility study and the evaluation of the developed method accuracy. The second optimization criterion (risk function (7)) is based on unreliable data therefore the absence of accuracy analysis makes all optimization results unreliable. Paragraph IV – Methodology and especially its parts C and D (pages 4-5) are written in too mathematical manner which looks heavy in a technical paper.

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author
1. This manuscript proposed multi-objective optimization model to solve the problem that is innovative, but it is worth discussing that whether each parameter is easy to obtain.
2. There are too many abbreviations created by authors own in this manuscript

Reviewer: 3

Comments to the Author
The authors present an optimization approach for DC deicing of transmission lines. The approach appears interesting, but some issues exist and require changes:

1. English is poor in places or non descriptive. The entire paper should be heavily revised for language.

A. "The de-icing scheme 1 is shown in Fig. 4. It endeavors to avoid over design problem for determining the value of ice thickness."
AA. "the over design problem"?
AAA. What exactly is the "over design" problem? This term is never mentioned before in the paper...

B. IV.E needs appropriate indention...

C. "For the area of Southern China which often encounters ice disasters and has DC de-icing devices well equiped, the proposed de-icing outage optimal scheduling management framework is an effective tool to help the anti-ice work."
CC. This is 2015, there is NO excuse for misspellings of common words, "equiped" since modern word processors and even web browsers automatically highlight these, and frequently automatically change them.
CCC. "DC de-icing devices well equipped" means what? well versus non-well equipped? equipped vs not equipped? or what?

2. The flowchart in figure 2 is an excellent addition. However it is not that useful in its current state since components of the flowchart are not consistently named with sections of the text. The authors should link this back to the section of the text where each component is introduced. Hence the block for "Predict ice thickness of all icing lines" should be "Predict ice thickness of all icing lines (III.A)" and so on for all blocks.

3. The authors state "Fig.1 illustrates the proposed framework for de-icing
scheduling management." but then Figure 2 shows a flowchart for transmission lines de-icing outage scheduling (TLDOS) system.
A. This reviewer assumes that Figure 2 is contained in a block in Figure 1, this should be noted. The TLDOS flowchart should be indicated in Figure 1.
B. Block 2 of TLDOS "Predict ice thickness of all icing lines" and Block 2-4 (e.g. "Transmission lines icing forecast"

of Figure 1 appear redundant. Shouldn't this icing information therefore be an input to the flowchart in Figure 2?
C. The authors should link this back to the section of the text where each component is introduced.

4. Some aspects of the conclusions are not as valid as they could be. The authors state "The ITPV is 10.9mm, which is far away from 15mm and little larger than that in scheme 2." However, this solution is an estimate and thus a confidence interval would exist for it.
A. All of these ITPV results are very close (the EENS results are similarly close too) and thus without confidence intervals, it is hard to tell how much "better" any one solution is...
B. The authors' statement "Compared with 1696.6MW·h without de-icing, each de-icing scheme is able to reduce the system risk." is obviously valid, however the EENS results differ by, at most 72.9 MWh and frequently by less than 10 MWh. So a confidence interval on this estimate would be helpful.

怎么看是大修还是小修啊，修改后录用的机会怎么样啊，心虚如狗啊

回复此楼