Research on Wind Power Prediction Based on a Gated Transformer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Strong side of this article is many-sided handling time-series data prediction probles from new point of view. The weak point of this article is oftenused new terminus, without explanation. It isn't easy to read following the text's meaning.

1. Not explained, what is the Gated Transformer methodology?

2. On row 151, what is: standardised by Z-Score? Please explain the essence of this.

3. What means the periods in Fig. 2?

4. From row 210 is explained what type lines mean. It is unnecessary because these data are available in the signing of Figure 3a.

5. On row 268, what means the RNN-based frameworks? For clarity for readers, it needs to explain.

6. On rows 290-291. What information gives the mention that the Signoid layer constitutes gating information and its value is in [0,1]. Such parenthesis belongs to reference.

7. On row 296, the formula (4). It does not explain what means the symbols in formula (4).

8. On the row 307bappear Kernel size. We know Kwenel density. Could you tell me what this means in this context?

9. On row 317 appear unknown symbols. What does this mean? What is their essence?

10. On fig 5b is written in Kerner size. Is it the same as presented earlier Kernel or not?

11. Fif 5 and 6 need more explanation of what is imagined.

12. what does the pipeline gated transformer mean in Fig 6 signing?

13. At the beginning of page 13. Is it a figure or table? What number does it have?

14. In conclusion waiting for some numerical indicator.

15. In the author's list, who is SIO-KEI IM? Is it a person or a department?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Hi

After studying the article, I have the following observations:

1. What is the importance of evacuated Numerical Weather Prediction? Its negatives and positives?

2. What is the contribution of the paper?

3. In the introduction, the goals achieved from the work must be mentioned in the form of points.

4. The introduction needs to be expanded by mentioning related works.

5. It is necessary to carry out a comparative study with other works on the same subject.

6. In the conclusion, future work should be mentioned as a continuation of this topic.

7. What is the importance of the work done on the ground?

8. What are the limitations of the work done?

9.References must be written in the same format and according to the journal's policy.

Author Response

Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Although the research theme seems good and worthy of investigation and research, still, the manuscript lags at several areas that needs to be carefully improved to enable the manuscript more worthy to suit the wider audience of the journal.
1.  The abstract in its current form is highly adolescent. The context is wired and twisted and difficult to understand. Dear authors, The Abstract is the front face of the manuscript; please keep the sentence simple, concise, and straightforward so that is easy to understand and reflects the core findings of the work; Avoid sloppy and clumsy writing that makes the sentences vague. Authors should not use pronouns like I, We/Our……. In the abstract or main body of the article. Authors are advised to consult a language expert in the domain or a native language processor and carefully proofread before resubmission.

2. The literature in its current form is inadequate. Kindly revise the literature by adding more text concerning the most recent advancements in the domain.
3. Incorporate a robust tabular comparison of the proposed Research on Wind Power Prediction Based on Gated Transformer with other Analyses/methodologies (on relevant parameters of current interest) recently published in high-impact journals (not older than 2017) in the domain.
4. Based on the tabular comparison, please mention (point-wise in bullets) the previous drawback/research gaps that motivated you to pursue this study.
5. Then Highlight your contribution (Point-wise) to addressing the research gap.
6. Rest the implementation part seems sound.

 

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Hi

I have some notes:

1. On line 44, you wrote "output.(3) Optimize" or "output.(3) Optimize".

2. Where is the reference 5 and 6? They are not in the foreground immediately after ref. 4.

3. On line 58, you wrote “data [12-13]. However.” It is more correct to write “data [12, 13]. However.”

4. Same note in Question 3 with “methodologies [14-15].”

5. It is better to end the introduction with sections of the article to improve its quality.

6. On line 189, you wrote "in {2,4,8,16} data" It is better to leave a space after each comma (,).

7. In line 212, you mentioned in the text table 1, where is the table?????

8. On line 432, you wrote "to be {1,2,4}respectivel" same note as question 6.

9. You must follow the journal's policy in writing the paper, especially in the titles of the forms.

10. References are not uniformly written. In addition, it is not written according to the journal's policy.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have professionally addressed the Reviewers comments. The Revised manuscript in its current form matches the journal standards and is more liable to be published.

 

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

We are very grateful to your recognition and the comments. We have made appropriate adjustments to the English writing.