A model-based approach for detecting and identifying faults on the D.C. side of a P.V. system using electrical signatures from I-V characteristics

Muhammad Adnan Khan; Khalid Khan; Adnan Daud Khan; Zubair Ahmad Khan; Shahbaz Khan; Abdullah Mohammed

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260771

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 6, 2021
1 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Lei Chen, Editor PONE-D-21-20995 A model-based approach for detecting and identifying faults on DC side of a PV system using electrical signatures from I-V characteristics PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Khan, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 16 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Lei Chen, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide 4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary). Additional Editor Comments: Please carefully address the comments of two reviewers to improve your paper. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1. There are places in the article that do not indicate which equation to cite, such as the paragraph above Equation 7. 2. What does P.S. (3.1) mean in the descriptive paragraph of Figure 6? 3. In the analysis of Figure 6, it is mentioned that four different regions can be set for values beyond the predefined thresholds, but it is not clearly described what the four regions are and how to define the boundary between the four regions. 4. Appropriately add some relevant descriptions on how to determine the threshold range. 5. Add some comparisons with other scholars' work on electrical methods. 6. Further elaborate on the specific advantages or innovations of this method. Reviewer #2: 1. The introduction of this submission should be improved further. The key differences between your work and previous studies should be clarified. A point-to-point way is recommended to state the main contributions. 2. PV modeling section is very traditional, and this reviewer suggests this section can be shorten properly. 3. The writing style of this work likes a technical report, but not a scientific paper. 4. A comparison of your method and other work should be carried out. 5. Most of the figures have poor quality, such as, lacking of unit. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260771.r001
Revision 1
26 Sep 2021 Author Response Editor’s comments, Comments to the Author Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Author’s response: The corresponding author, on behalf of all the co-authors, would like to thank the editor for the positive feedback and encouragement. The revised version of the manuscript has been updated according to the guidelines provided by the PLOS ONE style requirements. ________________________________________ 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: Author’s response: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. ________________________________________ a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. Author’s response: No funding or any financial grant has been received for conducting this study. ________________________________________ b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: Author’s response: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript ________________________________________ c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. Author’s response: The authors received no specific funding for this work. ________________________________________ 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. Author’s response: There are no ethical restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set. ________________________________________ b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Author’s response: The data set is uploaded in the review as a Supporting Information file. ________________________________________ 4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Author’s response: The list of authors is provided with affiliation in the given order, which is requested to be considered in the revised version of the manuscript. i. Muhammad Adnan Khan1, Affiliation: Research Associate, Center for Advanced Studies in Energy University of Engineering and Technology, Phase 5, opposite to Sui Northern Gas Pipeline office, Postal address 25000, Peshawar. ii. Khalid Khan2* Affiliation: Research Associate, Center for Advanced Studies in Energy University of Engineering and Technology, Phase 5, opposite to Sui Northern Gas Pipeline office, Postal address 25000, Peshawar. iii. Adnan Daud Khan3* Affiliation: Dean Faculty Renewable Energy, Center for Advanced Studies in Energy University of Engineering and Technology, Phase 5, opposite to Sui Northern Gas Pipeline office, Postal address 25000, Peshawar. iv. Zubair Ahmad Khan4 Affiliation: Professor at Department of Mechatronics, University of Engineering and Technology, Phase 5, opposite to Sui Northern Gas Pipeline office, Postal address 25000, Peshawar. v. Shahbaz Khan5 Affiliation: Lab Engineer at Department of Mechatronics, University of Engineering and Technology, Phase 5, opposite to Sui Northern Gas Pipeline office, Postal address 25000, Peshawar. vi. Muhammad Rizwan Siddiqui6 Lecturer at Capital University of Science and technology (CUST), Islamabad Expressway, Kahuta، Road Zone-V Sihala, Islamabad, Islamabad Capital Territory. ________________________________________ 5. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article. If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. Author’s response: The authors agree to publish the review history of the article. ________________________________________ Please carefully address the comments of two reviewers to improve your paper. Editor’s comments, Concern #1: Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Author response: The authors appreciate the positive remarks of the reviewer #1 and would like to reflect on any particular section of the manuscript to improve its quality, if highlighted by the reviewer. Reviewer #2: Yes Author response: The authors appreciate the positive response of the reviewer #2. ________________________________________ Concern #2: Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Author response: The authors would be happy to elaborate further on the techniques used in the article, provided specific questions are asked to be addressed. Reviewer #2: Yes Author response: The authors appreciate the feedback of the reviewer #2. ________________________________________ Concern #3: Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g., participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Author response: The authors appreciate the positive feedback of the reviewer #1. Reviewer #2: Yes Author response: The authors appreciate the positive feedback of the reviewer #2. ________________________________________ Concern #4: Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Author response: The authors appreciate the positive feedback of the reviewer #1. Reviewer #2: Yes Author response: The authors appreciate the positive response of the reviewer #2. ________________________________________ 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. Reviewer #1: 1. There are places in the article that do not indicate which equation to cite, such as the paragraph above Equation 7. Author’s response: The author appreciates reviewer #1 comment on this issue, as it was mistakenly left by author in the earlier draft. This mistake has been rectified and all equations are numbered properly as well as cited properly in the new draft. Equations after correction are highlighted yellow in the new draft. ________________________________________ 2. What does P.S. (3.1) mean in the descriptive paragraph of Figure 6? Author’s response: This question has been answered more properly and the issue has been addressed in the new draft in the last paragraph of methodology section, being highlighted in yellow there. Hope this will answer reviewer’s question. ________________________________________ 3. In the analysis of Figure 6, it is mentioned that four different regions can be set for values beyond the predefined thresholds, but it is not clearly described what the four regions are and how to define the boundary between the four regions. Author’s response: To answer this question, a brief description has been added to the new draft just below fig. (6), in highlighted text. This description has elaborated, in a brief way, on threshold levels and how they were selected. Furthermore, all the four regions regarding “Vte” are described and the boundaries between them are clearly defined in that. However, the focus of this paper is on checking the sensitivity of parameters that could serve in creating electrical signatures. Hence, it was found that Vte does the job by responding to various operating conditions in ways different enough from each other to differentiate between faults, which description tells clearly. ________________________________________ 4. Appropriately add some relevant descriptions on how to determine the threshold range. Author’s response: This question has already been answered in question 3. Apart from that, threshold levels are defined more clearly in first paragraph of Methodology section, text highlighted in yellow. Hope that will answer the question. ________________________________________ 5. Add some comparisons with other scholars' work on electrical methods. Author’s response: A comparison with other scholars’ work has been made at the end of results and discussions section. Highlighted in yellow. ________________________________________ 6. Further elaborate on the specific advantages or innovations of this method. Author’s response: It has been answered in the same description where comparison with other scholars’ work has been made, as stated above. ________________________________________ Reviewer #2: 1. The introduction of this submission should be improved further. The key differences between your work and previous studies should be clarified. A point-to-point way is recommended to state the main contributions. Author’s response: The paper has been reviewed by the author after reviewers’ comments and the content has been improved. Hope it will satisfy the reviewer. ________________________________________ 2. PV modelling section is very traditional, and this reviewer suggests this section can be shortened properly. Author’s response: Author appreciate reviewer’s comment on PV modelling. In response, it is stated that PV modelling contains equations for modelling the related text to describe the terms used in model equations. No extra content has been added and author has aimed to contain modelling section in as small portion as possible. ________________________________________ 3. The writing style of this work likes a technical report, but not a scientific paper. Author’s response: Paper has been revised with minor changes as per reviewers’ comments. Hopefully the new draft resembles more like paper. ________________________________________ 4. A comparison of your method and other work should be carried out. Author’s response: Done at the end of Results and Discussion chapter. ________________________________________ 5. Most of the figures have poor quality, such as, lacking unit. Author’s response: This issue has been addressed in the new draft, where care has been taken while generating new figures for the paper. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260771.r002
17 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Lei Chen, Editor A model-based approach for detecting and identifying faults on the D.C. side of a P.V. system using electrical signatures from I-V characteristics PONE-D-21-20995R1 Dear Dr. Khan, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Lei Chen, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260771.r003
Formally Accepted
23 Dec 2021 Acceptance Letter - Lei Chen, Editor PONE-D-21-20995R1 A model-based approach for detecting and identifying faults on the D.C. side of a P.V. system using electrical signatures from I-V characteristics Dear Dr. Khan: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Lei Chen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260771.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .