Resilient Networked Control of Inverter-Based Microgrids against False Data Injections

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript investigates the vulnerability of MG control in the presence of false data injection attacks. Generally, the manuscript is of interest and within the scope of the journal. The structure and presentation are also well-organized. The authors are invited to address the following minor comments before publication:

1. In the last line of the abstract, please point out the main achievement of your suggested controller (in terms of percentage of improvement) over the previous controllers.
2. Please make sure that all the parameters/variables of mathematical formulations are defined appropriately.
3. Line 147: the reference citation is missing (replaced with ?)
4. Conclusion: please extend this section to include: (1) the main achievements of the proposed controller (2) The results of comparison with previous controllers (3) the challenges and limitations of the current controller (4) some suggestions for further research in the future.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your time reviewing our paper. Please take a look at the attached review response and the revised paper to find my responses. 

Best

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors should carefully address the following concerns. - Abstract: Adding important numeric findings at the end of the abstract is very important to support the comprehensiveness of the abstract. - Introduction Section: The names of the researchers should be used in place of the words "authors" (page2-line50), "researchers" (page2-line52), etc. - Methodology Section: It is written appropriately. - We believe that the included analytics are insufficient. Some analysis should be added about the potential of the proposed approach to fend off false data injection attacks. - In Addition, it should add study limitations. - Conclusion Section: It is preferable to add some future directions - Figures and Tables: All figures and tables are drawn clearly and with high resolution. However, it prefers to enlarge Figures 1 and 2. Also, Figure 9 is not used in the text. - English Writing: This paper requires moderate proofreading. There are some grammatical and typos issues (such as “micorgrids” … etc.). The authors have to sift through the entire paper to eliminate all problems in terms of English writing. - References List: The references are recent and related to the research topic but the number of references is insufficient for this study. Moreover, the reference list should follow the journal style. Some search names in the reference list begin an uppercase letter for each word (such as [1], [2] ... etc.) and others use only an uppercase letter in the first word (such as [5], [7] … etc.), authors should standardize style. Authors should remove the "?" on page 6-line 147. The authors must carefully double check references list to eliminate all problems.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thanks for your time reviewing our paper. Please take a look at the attached review response and the revised paper to find my responses. 
Best

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf