Optimal Control of Technological Processes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a novel analysis of closed-loop control systems and derive conditions under which certain desirable properties are possible. Namely, conditions are shown under which stability without oscillation is achievable using a description of closed-loop dynamical systems that will have wide applicability.
However, the manuscript suffers from one main issue, which is that the introduction does not properly set the stage for *why* the work is novel. While there is a description of what's in the paper, the introduction does not highlight in simple terms what aspects are new and unique. The authors are clearly excited to dive into their mathematical equations and processes, but it would be very helpful to the reader to add context and motivation.
While the introduction has English language usage that is grammatically perfect or nearly so, the use of generic terms is off-putting. The terms "technological process" and "control objects" either need to be explicitly defined or replaced with generic terms of more common use. It seems like "dynamical systems," at times with closed-loop feedback, are what the authors mean, but as a reviewer I feel I may have misinterpreted this.
Some of the equations should be double-checked for formatting issues. For example (44) contains the odd text ".label f11".
Hopefully the authors will be able to introduce their work more clearly to help readers focus and stay motivated to work through the many equations.
The English language quality is generally very good in terms of grammar. Some aspects of word choice are either confusing or following conventions unfamiliar to the reviewer.
While not persistent, there may be a few cases where questions of verb tense and/or grammatical number agreement are in question. For example the first sentence of the Conclusions, I believe, should end with "is achievable" rather than "is achieved".
The paper is consistently written in the present/present perfect tense and passive tense. There's no problem with these choices, but the level of consistency is impressive and helps readers stay with the paper through transitions.
Author Response
The revised version of the paper is attached to the note. The modified parts of the paper are highlighted.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with the stability of closed-loop linear systems and establishes conditions under which robust stability is guaranteed. The paper is interesting with a sound theoretical background and applications. I find the paper suitable for its direct acceptance. The only detail I could find is a typo in page 2 for reference [7], which reads [7?]. A very nice and solid paper.
Author Response
The revised version of the paper is attached to the note. The modified parts of the paper are highlighted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The work is well done, and the mathematics is clearly explained. However, many readers may find this to be quite abstract, and have difficulty seeing how they can apply the results. A simple example of an actual system would add a great deal to the applicability of the paper, and help readers understand how they could actually apply the results. Such an example does not need to be large or extensive, just something that can be easily comprehended.
In addition, I noted one small issue with a reference; on the second page, there is a question mark in a reference at the middle of the page, i.e., "[7? ]". I'm not sure if this was an indication that the authors needed to go back and check that reference or if they were using LaTeX and there was a compiler issue, but it should be an easy fix in either case.
Author Response
The revised version of the paper is attached to the note. The modified parts of the paper are highlighted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
