Research on Modified Hybrid Frequency Modulation Technology of Type-III Asymmetric CHB Multilevel Inverters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Fig. 3 and 4, Fig. 8 and 9. Please indicate clearly the differences between these drawings or give up one.
Fig. 10 shows only desk clutter. What is his purpose?
In articl, in my opinion, the novelty (cognitive) element is poorly marked.
Based on the work described in the article, conclusions are presented. In my opinion, they are not entitled. Because no objective quality indicator was used to assess the quality. There is no local assessment. There is no global rating. No specific numbers provided.
Do the differences exceed the acceptable error value for such an analysis?
The work contains 22 items of bibliography. In this 5 positions is autocytation.
The authors have a problem with the correct citation of papers (1, 2, 3, 5, ...). The literature selection is incorrect. These are not representative articles.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present an interest issue. Their seems promising but present specific weaknesses that must be addressed before any further evaluation. In  particular:

1. The language need improvement. The linguistic errors are minor as per case but large in number. Thus the authors are encouraged to use a native English speaking person to review their manuscript.

2. The presentation and the comparison with the work of others is rather limited, even though there is a table for summarizing the comparison. The presentation should be enhanced in a way to clearly present the benefits and the novelty that this work presents against the work already published. This way the authors will justify the novelty that is required for publication in a journal with the status of Electronics.

3. Their experimental procedure do not include error analysis. It is of paramount importance to have a detailed error analysis in experimental procedures as this validates and proves the accuracy and the quality of the results.

4. The comparison between simulation and experimental results is rather poor and unclear. The authors must include a extensive and detailed comparison between the experimental and theoretical results.

5. It is of paramount importance to clearly present the novelties against the already published work and the usability of their proposal. These both are not adequately presented and analyzed in their manuscript, even though have paramount importance for the process of the review of the manuscript.

6. The literature is rather limited even though that the subject is a hot topic in electronics. Thus the authors are advised to enhance their references used in their manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is proposed a novel MHF-PWM strategy. The paper contains an experimental validation, which shows the measured values of the built device. The simulation part compares the proposed strategy with other strategies found in the literature. However, the simulation model not validated by the measurements, or the simulation and the measurement should be compared and mentioned, close to Fig 12.

Minor notes:

- Figure 10 should be improved, hard to read the red text on the figure.

- referring to the author name instead of using Literature[x] in the text, can improve the readability of the paper

- some final comments are missing for me, which indicates the future directions and making suggestions for improvements.

- the text in the literature review, which seems a very good analysis, but hard to follow, it would be nice that it can be somehow simplified

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors used a percentage to assess the results obtained.
Unfortunately, this is unscientific method of conduct.
This indicates a certain weakness of the article.
Mostly cited Asian literature does not exhaust the state of the world state of knowledge.
I suggest removing fig. 10 from the text.
This drawing adds nothing to the article.
Its quality is low.
The authors should insert a block diagram in this place.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improve their work but still the error analysis is poor. The authors should improve it. Also the comparison is still missing the weaknesses and strengths of their work against competition.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

 Thank you for your notes, now is clear for me how you designed the experiments and the simulation. It would be more clear for me, if the same simulation was validated by measurements or a  different paper design, which can be more clear.

 The readability of the picture  is improved, however my questions for the literature review are still exist. But these changes, depends on you, I think some modification should be made, to attract the reader at first, than if he is interested will be check the details.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improve their manuscript. Some linguistic errors remain in new parts of the text