Design of Energy-Management Strategy for Solar-Powered UAV

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.      Mention the reference for solar-powered UAV parameters

2.      How the weight has decided as 75 kg.?

3.      Mention reference for all mathematical expression if adopted from any reference.

4.      Mention the software/tool used for the analysis.

5.      Literature review must contain latest papers.

6.      Authors have compared the results with reference [20]. Authors should specify that whether the objective function used by the [20] is similar to the considered in the manuscript. If objective function is not same then author should justify the selection for comparison.

7.      PSO is used for the optimization. Author should justify the selection of PSO over the other existing meta-heuristic methods.

8.      How PSO is used in the proposed problem solution? Should be explained in detail either with flowchart or steps.

9.      Avoid reference citation in conclusion.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is interesting, however, there are certain minor points that warrant attention. Here are the specific comments:

 

1. The organization of the review appears somewhat unclear. Consider utilizing subheadings to categorize the literature, which would provide readers with a more structured presentation.

2. The distribution of citations seems imbalanced, with some studies receiving excessive emphasis while others are given insufficient attention. It is advisable to achieve a more equitable distribution of references across relevant works.

3. The figures included in the review are pixelated and lack the requisite resolution for clear interpretation. Enhancing clarity could be achieved by providing higher resolution versions.

4. To offer a more comprehensive perspective, it would be beneficial to expand the list of references to encompass studies that explore similar methodologies or concepts, such as: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.2018.2876738, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2021.02.045, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2021.103114, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-019-0302-3.

5. It is crucial to review the formatting of citations and references to ensure consistent adherence to the journal's guidelines, as this is essential for maintaining accuracy and clarity.

The grammatical errors should be removed 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors of this manuscript designed a new energy management system for UAVs using PSO. 

Here are my comments:

1- Please write the name in the abstract "Unmanned Arial Vehicles" before using the acronym.

2- Line 33 in the intro: "Error! reference source not found" please fix that in your Word doc.

3- Line 27 in the intro: "Many academicians has been studied...". Line 57 in the intro: "Besides, there are also many researches focus..." Fix these sentences.

4-  There are many grammar issues all over the manuscript. please double check and fix all of them.

5- Line 89 in the intro: "K et al. [14]established". Please re-write this in a different way.

6- The problem statement is not very clear in section 2. Building up to your problem statement is very essential to get readers to understand the importance of the work.

7- Line 157 in 2.3 (and also line 200): "? is gravity of UAV" what do you mean by this? gravitational acc. of earth?

8- What is H in eqn 3?

9- There is a blank page in the script? Fix this.

10- Please add a paragraph in section 3 explaining PSO in general.

11- There is a graph inside the graph in fig 6. Could not read the numbers in there.

12- Why did you choose a fixed velocity of 0.8m/s in the climb stage?

13- Why didn't you put the glide stages in figs 8 and 9 instead of P1 P2 and P3? They look very confusing like this.

14- Table 3 looks crooked. Please fix it.

 

I added a few remarks to the authors. A comprehensive review is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors seemed to have addressed all  the questions and concerns. I have no further comments.