Dear Prof. Kim:
I am writing to you in regards to manuscript # Access-2020-31242 entitled "Reliability of Distribution Systems in the Smart Grid: Research Challenges and Opportunities" which you submitted to IEEE Access.
Please note that 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.
Your manuscript has not been recommended for publication in IEEE Access in its current form; however, we do encourage you to revise and resubmit your article once you have addressed the concerns and criticisms of the reviewers detailed at the bottom of this letter.
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.
Dr. Eklas Hossain
Associate Editor, IEEE Access
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Recommendation: Reject (updates required before resubmission)
1. Abstract is generally written. The inception of DS, REE and ESS, reliability has been undoubtedly a key concern and researchers have taken different routes to explore the solution. Please specifically mention the contribution and highlight the approaches of this paper in the abstract for bolstering upon the novelty of the work. Moreover, since there are mixture of tenses in the abstract, kindly revise the abstract avoiding grammatical mistakes.
2. Please avoid the use of lumped references such as - in page 2, as it does not signify detailed literature study on ESS. Instead, please elaborate significant studies and correlate how the outcomes impact the study.
3. Since the review includes literatures throughout the paper, section I and II could be modified, reorganized and even merged to smoothen the flow of information, and to avoid the duplication of the contribution mentioned in both the sections. Moreover, in one portion of section II, it is mentioned that previous studies [36-41] overlooked different aspects enlisted by the authors. There are other new papers on reliability particularly related to the mentioned topics which should be brought into consideration for a fruitful and updated study. Please add recent works on the mentioned technologies related to reliability to improve the content of the paper.
4. Please create a nomenclature section to enlist the symbols and abbreviations from the paper for enhanced readability.
5. Section IV, V and VI summarizes existing works on smart grid, renewables and IoT, but do not clearly correlates the relation to the grid reliability and resilience. Please remove the known materials from those sections (i.e. definitions, cases not related to the main concept of the paper), and kindly correlate how these innovations are contributing to the reliability to focus more on the core theme of the paper.
6. Section VII, being one of the crucial section in the paper, requires further studies. Instead of mentioning what to do in each sections, some indication on how to implement the research challenges and how the researchers are pursuing the problems stated would be more valuable. This would enhance the quality of the paper, as well as provide insights to the readers in the domain. For example, many recent studies on smart grids encircles around big data and artificial intelligence, which can be added in the paper for indicating ways to improve reliability. Please consider studying recent reviews, for example the following article, for the improvement of the paper on the topic of IoT, big data and machine learning. Kindly use it only if and where appropriate and applicable.
¡®Application of big data and machine learning in smart grid, and associated security concerns: A review¡¯
7. Please update the figure captions to highlight what information the figures refers to, so that the figure can be understood independently without the help from the in-text explanations. For example, Figure 1 caption should mention the concept of one way and two way communication, as this is the major purpose of the figure. For figure 5, it is not clear what is inferred by ¡®component¡¯ from the diagram, figure 6 and 9 should mention the outcome in short what is determined from the graph, fig 7 should explain in brief the contents shown in DER technology. Please modify accordingly as the captions would help the readers to better understand the figures without any reference to the text.
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Fairly
Is the paper technically sound?: Yes
Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Somewhat, but the presentation could be improved.
Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: More reference pertaining to the recent technologies could be presented.
Recommendation: Reject (updates required before resubmission)
1. Figure 2 and figure 3 seem irrelevant to the research work. Instead, I would like to suggest adding some graphical representation illustrating the current challenges of this research.
2. A lot of discussions have been added regarding how many research papers have been reviewed, even how those papers have been collected. It needs not to be mentioned, as it is not pertinent to your research work.
3. ¡°It covers the related works published mainly from 2016 to 2018¡±—It is recommended to enlist at least five years of publications.
4. In section VII, the authors presented the challenges and the future works that require to be performed. However, the author did not present any of their thoughts about the way to solve those challenges. It is not expected to present a solution for all the challenges, however, a discussion regarding the way for a probable solution for some of the challenges by analyzing current literature will also suffice.
Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes
Is the paper technically sound?: Moderately
Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Yes
Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: Yes.