&& 查看话题
IEEE 审稿意见回来了，大家帮我看看，有几点想咨询下各位
号投的，昨天给的意见，如下
——————————————————————————————————
Dear Authors:
Based on peer reviews, we have determined that your paper might be of interest for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery after revisions that have properly addressed the concerns of the reviewers and editor.
Please note that this is NOT a conditional acceptance of your paper and the revised version could still be rejected. It is, rather, recognition by our reviewers and editors that your paper merits further consideration.
Please note the following when preparing and submitting your revision:
1.& & & & You shall submit your revision within 6 weeks (for first revision) or 4 weeks (for subsequent revisions). Under exceptional cases, you may be granted an extension.
2.& & & & Please implement as many improvements as possible in the revised paper following the reviewers’ comments, as the future readers will only have access to your paper, not your response to the reviewers. You must mark changes made in a DIFFERENT COLOUR to facilitate the next round of review.
3.& & & & In addition, you shall submit a response to the reviewer comments. It is important to address each comment POINT-BY-POINT in your response file and to cover all the comments. If you don’t agree with some of the comments, please present your reasons to convince the reviewers.
4.& & & & You may use the cover letter to provide confidential comments to the editor. This shall be used ONLY for EXCEPTIONAL CASES where there is a fundamental disagreement or concern with one of the reviewer’s comments and you are not comfortable to share your concerns with the reviewer. If you decide to provide confidential comments, indicate in your regular response file that you have additional comments to the editor in the Cover Letter. You may color this statement so that the editor can identify it easily.
5.& & & & The revised paper must not exceed 8 pages. Under exceptional cases, a maximum of two extra pages may be granted with the consent of Editor-in-Chief. In case you are short of pages, you may use the response file (which has no page limit) to address the concerns of the reviewers in more detail.
6.& & & & The editorial board discourages multi-rounds of revisions. It is the responsibility of the authors to bring a paper to acceptable level within one or two rounds of reviews. The reviewers have no obligation to improve a paper for the authors.
Finally, I would like to encourage you to contribute to PWRD paper review in the future. Note that three or four volunteer reviewers have made it possible for your paper to be processed by the editorial board.
Please don’t reply to this email unless you have specific questions requiring my attention.
Sincerely yours,
Prof. Wilsun Xu
Editor-in-Chief, Transactions on Power Delivery
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS:
Editor's Comments:
Editor Comments for Author:
(There are no comments. Please check to see if comments were included as a file attachment with this e-mail or as an attachment in your Author Center.)
Reviewers' Comments:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
Some of the terminology needs to be updated in the current paper:
free frequency should be natural frequency, inter-phase shunt inductance should be mutual inductance.
General editing is required to clean up the language: eg. research object should be research objective. What does &integral criteria for fault nature determination& mean or what does &transition impedance& refer to?
The authors are advocating multi-phase opening and reclosing on parallel circuits. There are many examples of successful high speed single pole trip and reclose and some high speed three-phase trip and reclose. Have the authors found any references where two phases have been opened and reclosed either on one circuit or on parallel circuits? Are there any potential unbalance issues for the network? Is any care needed in selection of the neutral reactor to ensure successful arc extinction? A typical neutral reactor would be tuned for the single pole open case.
Sensitivity of the method to the assumed initial point of time (Page 4) has been noted as a limitation. The recommendation was made to add a delay and calculate a second integral value. Discussion should be added regarding the selection of the delay as well as demonstration of the security of the approach with the delay.
How does the method respond to an evolving fault? In other words, a single phase fault that becomes a phase-phase fault during the open time.
Are there issues with high impedance faults or with faults with varying fault resistances (arcing)?
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
The reviewer thinks that this manuscript demonstrates an interesting approach. Some issues are described below where the authors should address on them.
Editorial Comments:
In general the formatting is good. There should be line spaces before and after equations. The figures should be clear and readable on the black and white printouts. The authors should spend on time on making it better while not using more space.&&The authors may wish to provide up to 10 index terms according to the latest rules. Since the authors are demonstrating lots of equations, a nomenclature section may be an option. It should be Table instead of Tab.
Technical comments:
1. The introduction is well-written. It clearly shows the current state of art and challenges, as well as a detailed literature review. In addition, the reviewer understands that State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC) has issued some rules in 2005 regarding reclosure requirements for parallel transmission lines. Perhaps the authors may wish to add one or two paragraph briefly explain the background why it is necessary for doing this in China and how the approach in this manuscript would fit. This may increase the value of the paper.
2. Some of the background information in the formulation seems to be fundamental. The authors may wish to make Section II in a more compact format.
3. The reviewer understands that the authors are attempting to present as many results as possible, but the way how thing are organized in Section IV-B is not very readable. The pictures are small and not very well-readable, particularly on the printouts. The authors need to make it more organized as well as the texts so that it is more readable. Keep in mind that a sufficient example of results should illustrate the authors’ contributions.
4. Conclusion section is not written very well. Keep in mind that the conclusions are used to reflect the contributions of the authors’ rather than a summary.
In summary, the approach seems to be interesting but the concerns above should be addressed.
Reviewer: 3
Comments to the Author
This paper presents an adaptive reclosure scheme via combining fault nature determination and sequential reclosing.&&While the topic could be novel, the presentation quality is poor and the paper needs a complete rewrite to make it presentable.&&
A. Technical
1. The authors state “However, since space between the lines is respectively small, there might be more complicated faults such as cross-line fault and interphase fault other than ground fault.”&&- do they have a citation for this?&&What is currently done in such situations?&&
2. the authors state the following in the introduction, this reviewer thinks they should make it more clear what they are doing:
a. “Dynamic simulation experiment results of proposed scheme prove that the method is able to avoid influences of fault location, transition impedance and load current, and is able to correctly respond to all operation conditions and fault types, such as permanent and temporary metallic fault or fault with transition impedance, and single line operation mode or parallel line operation mode.”
aa. what exactly is meant by “dynamic simulation experiment”?&&
ab. This is an incredibly long sentence, the authors could and should make it multiple sentences
ac. It’s not exactly clear what the authors are claiming to have done…
3. why is the admittance matrix (eqn. 2) in the specified format?&&
4. Equations are largely uncited and of dubious provenance.&&It is not clear what is the authors’ original work and what is in literature.
5. Why is eqn. 33 scaled by 1/3?
6. Figure 4 is not the easiest to view, the fonts and sizes should be improved
7. What happens if Figs. 4, 6,7&&are viewed in black and white??&&
8. The authors state: “A prototype device based on the scheme proposed in this paper was built by Nanjing Electric Automation Equipment Factory, and has been put in testing.” So what?&&How is this performing.&&Do you have meaningful results?&&Or a citation?&&By itself this is a pointless contribution.&&
B. Referencing
1. “According to statistics, most line faults are temporary, reclosure is applied to ensure rapid recovery of power supply.” – what statistics?&&Such statements need evidence
2. No citations are available for Admittance matrices (eqn. 2)?
3. Largely no citations appear in II or III, this is troubling.&&
C. Writing and style
Medium to relatively poor quality with respect to writing:
1. “This paper takes parallel lines with shunt reactors as research object…” should be “as a”
2.&&“…analyzes free-frequency component…” should probably be “components”
3.&&“Take many actual 500kV parallel transmission lines as case study, free-frequency can be calculated as 30~40Hz.” Means what?&&
4. “According to Laplace Theory, free-frequency value of terminal voltage on fault phase can be calculated by following characteristic polynomial” – Laplace theory?&&I’m not familiar with that term.&&Do the authors mean Laplace Principal (not really appropriate here) or Laplace’s methods (probably the one).&&A citation would be helpful, even if it’s a basic math book so a reader knows what you are doing.
Some figures are very poor in quality, e.g. Figure 2 is impossible to read
Reviewer: 4
Comments to the Author
The authors analyze a methodology for determining whether a fault in a double circuit overhead power line is temporary or permanent. In order to do that, they utilize the existence (or absence) of resonant voltages between the distributed line capacitances and the respective shunt reactors used for reactive power compensation. Subsequently, they propose and simulate a respective reclosing scheme.
The paper concept is sound, and the general paper structure is good. However, the problem of the paper is the use of English, regarding basically syntax (e.g. a lot of essential articles is missing, and there are sentences that are difficult to follow due to bad syntax) and wrong usage of words (e.g. the word &deducted& is wrongly used instead of &deduced& at several places, and in my opinion the term &resonant frequency& should be used instead of &free frequency& ).&&Also, the authors use frequently values coming from their own experience. They should however define the basic characteristics of the power systems they are experienced in, as the values used may not be universal. For example, in p. 2, column 2, line 44, it is mentioned that the resonant frequencies in 500 kV parallel transmission lines will be 30-40 Hz. This is true in 50 Hz power systems, but the respective frequencies will be somewhat higher for 60 Hz systems.
************************************
关于修改我有几点疑问：
1）一定要上传word吗？主要是word自动转的pdf图片不太清楚，而且段落里的公式符号会导致行距的改变，所以我后期想改latex，但是latex不知道各种修改模式的标注会不会较困难？
2）其中一个审稿专家提出来如果图片是黑白的怎么办，我在想power delivery 不是有论文是彩色的吗？如果要表示三相电流的波形，不是彩色的怎么实现的了啊？
3）修改意见回复的格式哪里有吗？一般修改回答多少页？我准备搞个7到8页没问题吧
4）有一些关于社会价值方面的问题，这种怎么回答啊？我觉得很明显有价值的。。如
8The authors state: “A prototype device based on the scheme proposed in this paper was built by Nanjing Electric Automation Equipment Factory, and has been put in testing.” So what?&&How is this performing.&&Do you have meaningful results?&&Or a citation?&&By itself this is a pointless contribution.&&
这种。。。
谢谢，多多交流
1、可以上传latex，修改文章一般都不用修订模式吧
2、power delivery 在线版都是彩色的 就是自己打印出来用黑白打印机肯定是黑白版的赛
3、没有格式，页数根据问题，很多情况下都有回答超过10页，7-8页不算多
4、专业问题无法帮助，呵呵，祝好。
觉得大多审稿人都是中国人呢，呵呵，竟然还有用害羞的笑脸的，真亲民
祝好 : Originally posted by eexxyy at
1、可以上传latex，修改文章一般都不用修订模式吧
2、power delivery 在线版都是彩色的 就是自己打印出来用黑白打印机肯定是黑白版的赛
3、没有格式，页数根据问题，很多情况下都有回答超过10页，7-8页不算多
4、 ... 该期刊杂志纸质版的是彩色的吧，审稿人应该是有中国人，英语也是各种不通:jok: 4个审稿人？ : Originally posted by 水渺渺0静 at
4个审稿人？ 是的！ : Originally posted by 西子枫林 at
是的！ 我也在纠结文章 ，加油 : Originally posted by 西子枫林 at
该期刊杂志纸质版的是彩色的吧，审稿人应该是有中国人，英语也是各种不通:jok:... 纸质版 如果你需要时彩色的需要没一幅图另外给很多钱 如果不想给 则是在线PDF版是彩色的 纸质版是黑白的。 不过你等真正录用后再考虑这个事情吧 看起来楼主是搞输电线路继保的，国网继保的规定我不太清楚，不过你能说清楚为什么国网并行线路重合闸要在2005年出台新规定就更好（交代一下背景，原理可以不用说）；一般样机摆出来就要有测试结果才行，你说这个“南自”生产的有什么意义。。。谁做不都是一样，关键是这个东西做出来的应用效果怎么样，如果文中能够体现就更有说服力。
有关IEEE Latex的格式可以参考这个文档
http://emuch.net/bbs/attachment.php?tid=5211412&aid=17658 : Originally posted by moonglaive at
看起来楼主是搞输电线路继保的，国网继保的规定我不太清楚，不过你能说清楚为什么国网并行线路重合闸要在2005年出台新规定就更好（交代一下背景，原理可以不用说）；一般样机摆出来就要有测试结果才行，你说这个“南 ... 恩，是的，写文章嘛有些时候还是会模范其他的文章的，主要是看到以前葛耀中老师的一篇文章，最后也提了下南自已经生产样机。。
非常感谢 已经录用了，谢谢各位:) 楼主你好，请问你的修改说明是直接附在修改稿后面吗？还是另外提交一个word？非常感谢！！！ : Originally posted by _淡墨_ at
楼主你好，请问你的修改说明是直接附在修改稿后面吗？还是另外提交一个word？非常感谢！！！ 另外提交一个word救助啊 谁能帮我在IEEE里找一篇论文 灰熊感谢Study on principal-agent model of Logistics Finance in the environment of supply chainAuthor(s)Yongming Pan Acad. of Manage., Tianjin Univ. of Technol., Tianjin, China Qian Wang_百度作业帮
救助啊 谁能帮我在IEEE里找一篇论文 灰熊感谢Study on principal-agent model of Logistics Finance in the environment of supply chainAuthor(s)Yongming Pan Acad. of Manage., Tianjin Univ. of Technol., Tianjin, China Qian Wang
救助啊 谁能帮我在IEEE里找一篇论文 灰熊感谢Study on principal-agent model of Logistics Finance in the environment of supply chainAuthor(s)Yongming Pan Acad. of Manage., Tianjin Univ. of Technol., Tianjin, China Qian Wang有哪位热心的朋友帮忙下一篇论文啊？_百度知道
有哪位热心的朋友帮忙下一篇论文啊？
【题目】 ：Real-Time Implementation of Fault-Tolerant Control Systems With Performance Optimization【链接】ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6560360 发到邮箱就好了
提问者采纳
请直接在此页面下载附件，文献已上传，还望及时采纳答案！作者：Yin S, Luo H, Ding S X.&文题：Real-time implementation of fault-tolerant control systems with performance optimization期刊：Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, ): .
提问者评价
O(∩_∩)O谢谢
来自团队：
其他类似问题
为您推荐：
论文的相关知识
等待您来回答
下载知道APP
随时随地咨询
出门在外也不愁IEEE发论文第一作者和第二作者怎么区分我和同学一起做了一个器件，现在写论文，大部分工作是我做的，我想把我写成第一作者，他写成第二作者，请问论文里面怎么写来表示这个意思？_百度作业帮
IEEE发论文第一作者和第二作者怎么区分我和同学一起做了一个器件，现在写论文，大部分工作是我做的，我想把我写成第一作者，他写成第二作者，请问论文里面怎么写来表示这个意思？
IEEE发论文第一作者和第二作者怎么区分我和同学一起做了一个器件，现在写论文，大部分工作是我做的，我想把我写成第一作者，他写成第二作者，请问论文里面怎么写来表示这个意思？
IEEE论文一般以作者排序（投稿时系统中输入的作者顺序，以及文中作者列表中的顺序）为准，列在第一位的为第一作者，列在第二位的为第二作者，以此类推。这一点不仅在IEEE论文如此，绝大部分工程技术类论文均遵循此规则。
i欧有让我偶然有问题我i欧有WIOD一 我业务i欧提u诶他也i一特欧特欧诶哦他饿哦to我的这篇会议论文已被ei收录，在ieee xplore 能查到论文，可以帮我查下一篇论文的ei检索号吗？谢谢啦_百度知道
我的这篇会议论文已被ei收录，在ieee xplore 能查到论文，可以帮我查下一篇论文的ei检索号吗？谢谢啦
论文题目：Using Memo Recursive Computation in the Trajectory Approach for the Worst-Case Delay Analysis of AFDX Networks
提问者采纳
Accession number:
Using memo recursive computation in the Trajectory approach for the worst-case delay analysis of AFDX networks
Zhao, Luxi1 ; Xiong, Huagang1 ; Li, Qiao1 ; He, Feng1
Author affiliation:
Department of Electronic Information Engineering, BeiJing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing, China Corresponding author:
Zhao, L. (zhaolx@ee.)
Source title:
2011 International Conference on Electrical and Control Engineering, ICECE 2011 - Proceedings
Abbreviated source title:
Int. Conf. Electr. Control Eng., ICECE - Proc.
Monograph title:
2011 International Conference on Electrical and Control Engineering, ICECE 2011 - Proceedings
Issue date:
Publication year:
Article number:
来自：求助得到的回答
其他类似问题
为您推荐：
会议论文的相关知识
等待您来回答
下载知道APP
随时随地咨询
出门在外也不愁