Asatilla, [23.04.19 13:39]
Dear Prof. Kim:
I am writing to you in regards to manuscript # Access-2019-10781 entitled "Reliability of Distribution Systems in the Smart Grid: Research Challenges and Opportunities" which you submitted to IEEE Access.
In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) found at the bottom of this letter, your manuscript has not been recommended for publication in IEEE Access.
We do encourage you to revise and resubmit your article once you have addressed the concerns and criticisms of the reviewers. I believe they have added good insight on how to further improve your article. IEEE Access has a binary peer review process that does not allow revisions. Therefore, in order to uphold quality to IEEE standards, an article is rejected even if it requires minor edits.
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.
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.¡±
Finally, in your cover letter, please indicate if you would like us to assign your article to the same or different reviewers and we will do our best to accommodate your request.
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.
Dr. Eklas Hossain
Associate Editor, IEEE Access
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Recommendation: Accept (minor edits)
Comments has been addressed properly. Paper is very comprehensive and impressive amount of research and study has been carried out.
Some minor remarks still remains though:
- some figures appears a bit blurry (maybe because of using jpg) and some (in particular fig. 4) comes out as strangely larger than others
- units are lacking e.g. around the equations (4)-(6) and x-axis on fig. 5 has also no unit
- there could be a few more references in the last part of section VII - e.g. subsection I and J has no references to ongoing work, and K has only one.
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes
Is the paper technically sound?: Yes
Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes
Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Yes
Recommendation: Reject (update and resubmit encouraged)
Asatilla, [23.04.19 13:39]
1. The organization of the paper needs some modifications. The different topics are explained without any smooth transition and interrelation. Please focus on the matter to increase the comprehensibility.
2. Many textbook materials are available in several sections. These should be summarized or removed to make the context more specific. For example, in Section IV, details on each of the renewable energies are well known. Please change accordingly.
3. The contribution of the work is not clear. It collects paper from different sources, and sorts their approach based on their reliability matrices. The study is appreciated, but lacks significant outcomes.
4. Key references are missing in the paper. In a quick search in several renowned sources, I found many similar review papers on microgrid testbed, utility grid and power quality of renewable energy, where publications from different sources have been collected and compared. Please mention the salient differences of this paper with similar review papers.
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: No, the contribution of the work is not clear.
Is the paper technically sound?: The paper has the scopes to be technically sound if the contributions are verified
Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Fairly
Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: No, key references are missing. Moreover, as similar review papers are available (on microgrid testbed, challenges of utility grid/microgrid and power quality due to the introduction of renewable resources), this work needs to compared with those tasks.