Parameter Identification of Solar Photovoltaic Systems Using an Augmented Subtraction-Average-Based Optimizer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper titled 'Parameter Identification of Solar Photovoltaic Systems using 2 augmented subtraction-average-based optimizer' is well organized and presented in a good manner. The following amendments would improve the quality of the manuscript:

1. The quantitative results can be included in the abstract.

2. The research gap and the novelty of the study must be clearly stated at the end of the introduction section.

3. The proper citations must be given for the equations if they were not developed by the authors (for example, equations 1 to 6).

4. The list of symbols and abbreviations can be added as a separate section at the end of the manuscript.

5. The whole manuscript needed to be proofread for typos and grammar. For example, check the spelling of 'comparison' in the Table 6 caption.

6. The results and discussion need to be improved. It only talks about the trends in the graphs rather than the facts behind them. Elaborate on the discussions, comparing them with the earlier literature.

 

7. The conclusion looks generic. Modify the conclusion by including the critical findings and important results.

The whole manuscript needed to be proofread for typos and grammar. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.      Some typographical and grammatical errors of this paper should be carefully checked and corrected.

2.      The novelty of the work must be clearly addressed and discussed, compare your research with existing research findings and highlight novelty.

3.      The main objective of the work must be written on the more clear and more concise way at the end of introduction section.

4.      Despite of the availability of recently developed different meta-heuristic algorithm, why ASABA algorithm has been chosen for this problem? It is suggested to add some other optimization algorithm also.

5.      For comparison purpose, starting point of the convergence curves should be same for all the convergence comparison figures (Fig.4, Fig.6, Fig.9 and Fig. 11).

6.      From the figure mentioned above, it is observed that standard SABA algorithm converge approx 100 iterations but proposed ASABA algorithm takes 1000 iteration for convergence, then how ASABA is superior to other algorithms?  

7.      What are the different control parameters used for ASABA algorithm?

8.       In the conclusion section, it will include research contributions, research limitations, and future works.

Ok

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.Firstly, for Abstract, you should focus on the main conclusions and innovations of the paper. Some abbreviations in the abstract are not given full names.

 2. An additional, it is not appropriate to merge too many references together. Try to analyze the main work and innovation of each article. And some references are introduced too much, such as references 26 and 27.

 3. More background information should be added to show the importance of this research. What is the gap in the literature that this work addresses? Or is it just an improvement method?

 4.  Please refer to the Guidelines for Authors to format the full text.

 5.  Figures 2 and 3 are both from reference 34, so they may be better placed together and make it easier for readers to discover their differences.

 6. The analysis in Figures 9 and 11 is similar and requires further summary.

 7. The content of this paper is lack of innovation. In general, the model analysis is weak, maybe more economic comparative analysis can be increased, or use specific experimental test data to support these models.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed the comments satisfactorily. The paper can be accepted in the present revised form.

Minor correction such as typos can be corrected, appropriately.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have satisfactorily addressed my previous comments and provided a wide discussion on them. From my side, I do not have additional observations. Hence, I it may be accepted for publication.

Avearge

Reviewer 3 Report

Since the author has carefully revised according to the review comments, I suggest that this paper can be accepted.

Minor editing of English language required