The Optimal and Economic Planning of a Power System Based on the Microgrid Concept with a Modified Seagull Optimization Algorithm Integrating Renewable Resources
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The title is confusing. It is important to be more descriptive and representative of the content of the study.
The literature review in the Introduction looks like a simple collection of notes, without any criticism or comments. It is not used to differentiate from the approach proposed in this article.
The sections 2.1-2.3 just transcribe the common knowledge on load, wind turbines and PV systems. Since most of this Section (2) is just common sense and quite well-known in the power system community, I do not see the need to refer it in the scope of a scientific paper in this this journal.
The proposed method for grid zoning as well as the reliability assessment procedure is quite simple and poorly presented.
Extensive description is required to better understand the proposed optimization algorithm (e.g. justification for making use of chaos and fuzzy models). The presentation should be given with the aid of typical examples to facilitate readers follow the proposed concept.
It is not clear why most of the figures are presented. What relevant information was drawn from this analysis and how it helped to set the approach? The examples of figures 1, 2 and 3 are interesting, but they cannot be taken as representative of the respective scenarios. These are mere occurrences that might vary from period to period.
Conclusions: what about the future work? This section is completely absent.
Author Response
The title is confusing. It is important to be more descriptive and representative of the content of the study.
Response: in revision, title is modified, totally.
The literature review in the Introduction looks like a simple collection of notes, without any criticism or comments. It is not used to differentiate from the approach proposed in this article.
Response: in revision, the introduction is divided into four subsections to be well organized. Also in revision, the describes are added to solve the problems of previous papers and their scientific chats.
The sections 2.1-2.3 just transcribe the common knowledge on load, wind turbines and PV systems. Since most of this Section (2) is just common sense and quite well-known in the power system community, I do not see the need to refer it in the scope of a scientific paper in this this journal.
Response: referee is right, but since it has been used in the paper, we have summarized only the main formulas. Because we were previously asked to summarize this formulation so that the reader can more easily get acquainted with the principle while reading. Please keep in mind that sometimes there are requests from the author who does not know how to change to be considered by respected judges and editors. We hope the explanations provided will be accepted. But if the honorable referee still deems it necessary to remove these sections, we will certainly act according to his opinion.
The proposed method for grid zoning as well as the reliability assessment procedure is quite simple and poorly presented.
Response: in revision, we tried to add descriptions in different sections. Most of the sections are tried to be referenced so that the main subject is presented to the reader as briefly as possible.
Extensive description is required to better understand the proposed optimization algorithm (e.g. justification for making use of chaos and fuzzy models). The presentation should be given with the aid of typical examples to facilitate readers follow the proposed concept.
Response: in revision, according to the respected referee, at the end of the paper, more analysis is provided to evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm.
It is not clear why most of the figures are presented. What relevant information was drawn from this analysis and how it helped to set the approach? The examples of figures 1, 2 and 3 are interesting, but they cannot be taken as representative of the respective scenarios. These are mere occurrences that might vary from period to period.
Response: we would like to thank respected referee; in the case of Figures 1 to 3, as stated earlier, the goal is to provide a visual perspective for the reader to understand the relationships and concepts. In fact, Formula (1) consists of three parts called hourly and monthly load factor and peak time. From the diagrams, it can be seen how these parameters have changed during the 24 hours and usually within what range. In addition, the result of these three variables expresses the network load, which is referred to as the amount of demand in the network. If the honorable referee thinks that these forms must be removed, we will do it. But we hope the explanations provided are accompanied by a positive opinion of the dear referee.
Conclusions: what about the future work? This section is completely absent.
Response: in revision, these points are added at the end of the conclusion.
Reviewer 2 Report
- Title must be written in more comprehensive way.
- Abstract, summarize the numerical results of proposed work, and discuss how it outperforms existing works.
- Related work should be mentioned in a separate section by highlighting the comparative analysis. What are the unique features of this study compared to the existing works?
- A ‘Research Gap’ section should incorporate which will states the purpose of the study
- Flow chart presented in the figure 7 has some text missing.
- More detailed comparative analysis is required to show the novelty of the work. Authors must incorporated GWO, ALO, WOA, Harris Hawks Optimizer (HHO), Moth optimization, and sine cosine optimization to show the novel contribution of the work.
- In table 10, is the error presented in percentage or in some other unit. make it clear.
- Conclusion also required presenting in more quantitative manner
Author Response
Title must be written in more comprehensive way.
Response: in revision, the title of the paper is modified according to the opinion of the respected referee.
Abstract, summarize the numerical results of proposed work, and discuss how it outperforms existing works.
Response: in revision, we added the explanations to cover this issue in the abstract.
Related work should be mentioned in a separate section by highlighting the comparative analysis. What are the unique features of this study compared to the existing works?
Response: in revision, the introduction section is divided into four separate sections to cover this topic well.
A ‘Research Gap’ section should incorporate which will states the purpose of the study
Response: in revision, it is added in the introduction and in subsection 3-1.
Flow chart presented in the figure 7 has some text missing.
Response: in revision, it is modified.
More detailed comparative analysis is required to show the novelty of the work. Authors must incorporated GWO, ALO, WOA, Harris Hawks Optimizer (HHO), Moth optimization, and sine cosine optimization to show the novel contribution of the work.
Response: in revision, at the end of the paper and before concluding, a comparison is made based on the proposed methods.
In table 10, is the error presented in percentage or in some other unit. make it clear.
Response: in revision, it is modified.
Conclusion also required presenting in more quantitative manner
Response: in revision, tips are added to cover this issue for the conclusion section.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for considering my suggestions.
Author Response
Dear
Thank you, English language improved.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors tried to incorporate most of the comments raised by the reviewer. Authors incorporated a comparative analysis in the figure 12 also. It is better to increase the number of iteration to better understand the convergence of the different methods. Recompute the figure 12 by increasing number of iteration up to 500.
Author Response
Dear
Thank you, English language improved.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
