Adaptive frequency control in smart microgrid using controlled loads supported by real-time implementation

Ahmed M. Ewais; Ahmed M. Elnoby; Tarek Hassan Mohamed; Mohamed Metwally Mahmoud; Yaser Qudaih; Ammar M. Hassan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283561

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 27, 2022
5 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Yogendra Arya, Editor PONE-D-22-27803Adaptive frequency control in smart microgrid using controlled loads supported by real-time implementationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mohamed, 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 Jan 19 2023 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: https://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, Yogendra Arya 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/pl.osone/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. Our internal editors have looked over your manuscript and determined that it is within the scope of our Smart Energy Systems Call for Papers. The Collection will encompass the latest research in smart grid technologies, including information technologies, device integration, distribution methods, and data mining, all towards improving the efficiency of energy supply networks. Additional information can be found on our announcement page: https://collections.plos.org/call-for-papers/smart-energy-systems/. If you would like your manuscript to be considered for this collection, please let us know in your cover letter and we will ensure that your paper is treated as if you were responding to this call. If you would prefer to remove your manuscript from collection consideration, please specify this in the cover letter. 3. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 4. Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page. [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: Partly Reviewer #3: Partly Reviewer #4: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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: Paper needs to update with following comments. 1. As it is known that PV system has no inertia, so how it helps in Frequency control is a big question. Authors have to address this point. 2. There are many soft computing approaches then why Jaya Algorithm is employed for optimization? 3. Only integrating controller is used in the proposed controller. How this is possible to react in real sense without P controller. 4. There are many typos and grammar error. Reference list is not suffice to know the research gap. Some papers are self cited. 5. It should have some latest works with fractional order controllers to cover in discussion. Reviewer #2: 1. The author claims the proposed controller is adaptive and how the JAYA optimization tuned Integral controller becomes an Adaptive controller. Proper justification is required, which should be incorporated in the Simulation Results section. 2. Why did the author choose Jaya optimization for any specific reason? The superiority is compared with the algebraic approach, so why not with any recent Metaheuristic techniques? 3. Enhance the literature review section regarding recent LFC contributions. Reviewer #3: These are the comments to enhance the quality of work: 1) In Abstract provide some numerical data, what authors have achieved. 2) Introduction Section is weak, more explanation is required. 3) Elaborate literature review section and incorporate recent references as: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4056135; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2022.06.010; 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3202907; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12652-021-03403-6. 4) More explanation is required for the proposed optimization scheme. 5) Rewrite conclusion section. Reviewer #4: The paper proposes a classic Jaya optimizer for tuning the gains of frequency controllers of HP and PEV for islanded single area microgrid to improve system frequency stability. I have carefully assessed the manuscript and think that the paper has good contribution to the literature. I have the following comments: - 1) How the uncertainty owing to EVs has been considered while designing the proposed controller? 2) As there are several similar algorithms which can provide the similar results. Why shall we choose the Jaya optimization algorithm, instead of choosing "conventional" optimization solvers such as the Interior-point algorithm and other solvers? 3) Could the authors comment on what is the difference between the proposed optimization algorithm and the following paper algorithm “A new optimal robust controller for frequency stability of interconnected hybrid microgrids considering non-inertia sources and uncertainties,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 128. Elsevier, p. 106651, Jun. 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2020.106651. 4) What criteria have been considered, which led to the mentioned scenario for the test system? Especially the improvement of the frequency with the proposed controller is slightly noticed. See Fig. 7(a). Why we didn’t see sever case change (system parameter variations). ****** 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 Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. Pawan Kumar Pathak Reviewer #4: 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.0283561.r001
Revision 1
19 Jan 2023 Author Response Dear Editors and Reviewers The authors are thankful to the learned Editor and Reviewers for their thoughtful and detailed comments to improve the quality of the manuscript. The authors have given reviewer comments a lot of interest in the revision process in an attempt to address all of the reviewers’ concerns and corrections as you will already find them incorporated in the revised manuscript. Moreover, a reply to each of the reviewers’ comments is provided below. Kindly find the response to the reviewer’s comments in the following paragraphs. We hope this revised version of the manuscript meets the editor and reviewers’ expectations, and the standards of publication in the PLOS ONE Journal. The changes carried out by the authors are incorporated in the revised manuscript and highlighted in blue. Editor's Comments: Comments to the Authors: Comment-1: 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 Jan 19 2023 11:59PM. Response-1: Our sincere thanks and appreciation to the editor for considering our manuscript for publication in PLOS ONE Journal, and the recommending submission of the revised manuscript. To improve the quality of the manuscript, the reviewer's queries are addressed and their suggestions are incorporated into the revised manuscript. A new method called Hybrid Jaya-Balloon Optimizer is designed and implemented and compared with CDM and Jaya for frequency stability. The introduction section is rewritten, many changes in ;/abstract, simulation results, and conclusions are done based on reviewers’ quires. Table 3 is added to compare the current work with previously published works. Some sentences have been edited in the revised paper to clarify the paper's contributions and enhance the paper quality. Comment-2: 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'. Response-2: Our sincere thanks and appreciation to the editor for his comment. The required items are attached during submission process. The changes carried out by the authors are incorporated in the revised manuscript and highlighted in blue to be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers. A cover letter is provided and prepared to explain, point by point, the details of the revisions to the manuscript. Comment-3: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements. Response-3: The authors are extremely thankful to the editor for this thoughtful point. The revised manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style. Comment-4: Our internal editors have looked over your manuscript and determined that it is within the scope of our Smart Energy Systems Call for Papers. The Collection will encompass the latest research in smart grid technologies, including information technologies, device integration, distribution methods, and data mining, all towards improving the efficiency of energy supply networks. Additional information can be found on our announcement page: https://collections.plos.org/call-for-papers/smart-energy-systems/. If you would like your manuscript to be considered for this collection, please let us know in your cover letter and we will ensure that your paper is treated as if you were responding to this call. If you would prefer to remove your manuscript from collection consideration, please specify this in the cover letter. Response-4: The authors are extremely thankful to the editor for his interest in our work. Comment-5: 3. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. Response-5: The authors are extremely thankful to the editor for his advice. The guidelines have been reviewed. Comment-6: Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page. Response-6: The authors are extremely thankful to the editor for his careful in improving the quality of the manuscript. The revised manuscript has been amended to include the abstract after the title page. Reviewers Comments: Reviewer 1 Comments to the Authors: Comment-1: As it is known that PV system has no inertia, so how it helps in Frequency control is a big question. Authors have to address this point. Response-1: At the beginning, the authors are thankful to the honorable reviewer for the words of encouragement and trust in our work. The PV has no inertia and cause problem due to its intermittent nature. In our study the inertia is obtained from storage units (EVs, and HPs). We applied a newly hybrid Jaya-Balloon optimizer (JBO)-based controller for frequency oscillation mitigation in the investigated smart µG. The proposed optimization is compared with the conventional CDM and Jaya. Kindly check the revised manuscript. Comment-2: There are many soft computing approaches then why Jaya Algorithm is employed for optimization? Response-2: The authors are thankful to the esteemed reviewer upon his valuable comment. Based on the reviewer comment, the authors applied a newly hybrid Jaya-Balloon optimizer (JBO) and compared it with robust techniques such as Jaya and CDM. Kindly, check pages No. (8 - 12). Comment-3: Only integrating controller is used in the proposed controller. How this is possible to react in real sense without P controller. Response-3: The authors are thankful to the valuable comment, but we want to shed the light on this point, Integral controller is a suitable classical one in case of two main reasons: 1- The simplified closed loop transfer function of the LFC system is second order one, so including integral controller will make a desired output performance is available. 2- According to physical characteristics of the governor, the changes in its inputs should be in slow action, so integral controller is suitable one in such case. 3- Most references in LFC use integral classical controller. Comment-4: There are many typos and grammar error. Reference list is not suffice to know the research gap. Some papers are self-cited. Response-4: The authors are thankful to the esteemed reviewer upon his valuable comment and apologize for these typos and grammar errors. The revised paper has been proof read and grammatical errors corrected. Some references have been added to strength the literature review and most of self-cited papers are removed. Furthermore Table 3 is presented and added in the revised paper to show the current work importance and novelty. Kindly, check pages No. (19 - 23). Comment-5: It should have some latest works with fractional order controllers to cover in discussion. Response-5: The authors are thankful to the esteemed reviewer upon his valuable comment. Some new references regarding latest works with fractional order controllers have been added to the literature part in Section 1 (Introduction). Furthermore, Table 3 is provided in the revised paper to strength the literature review. Kindly, check pages No. (2, 3, and 19). Reviewer 2 Comment-1: The author claims the proposed controller is adaptive and how the JAYA optimization tuned Integral controller becomes an Adaptive controller. Proper justification is required, which should be incorporated in the Simulation Results section. Response-1: The authors are thankful to the esteemed reviewer upon his valuable comment. According to the reviewer’s viewpoint, more description about using Jaya as adaptive controller has been added, also a flowchart of Jaya in adaptive frequency controller has been considered in the revised manuscript. (Figures 4, 6 and 7) Comment-2: Enhance the literature review section regarding recent LFC contributions. Response-2: The authors are thankful to the esteemed reviewer upon his valuable comment. The literature review section regarding recent LFC contributions is enhanced in the revised paper. The introduction part is re written to be improve the paper quality and readability based on the reviewer comment. There are some references have been added to the literature part in Section 1 (Introduction) to strength the literature review. Furthermore, a comparative with previously published articles in this research area is provided in Table 3. Kindly, check pages No. (2, 3, 4, and 19). Comment-3: Why did the author choose Jaya optimization for any specific reason? The superiority is compared with the algebraic approach, so why not with any recent Metaheuristic techniques? Response-3: The authors are extremely thankful to the reviewer for this thoughtful point. As suggested by the respected reviewer, we applied a newly hybrid Jaya-Balloon optimizer (JBO)-based controller for mitigating the effect of mismatch in demand and generation and minimize the change in frequency deviation in the investigated smart µG. The main benefit of this technique is its high effectiveness, small overshoot, and quick dynamic response. The proposed optimization is compared with the conventional CDM and Jaya. Results section presents and summarize a comparison of the results between the proposed and the conventional CDM and Jaya. Kindly, check pages No. (8 - 12). Reviewer 3 Comment-1: In Abstract provide some numerical data, what authors have achieved. Response-1: As suggested by the esteemed reviewer, the abstract is rewritten and involve a numerical data. Kindly check (Pages no. 1). Comment-2: Introduction Section is weak; more explanation is required. Response-2: The authors are thankful to the esteemed reviewer upon his valuable comment. The introduction part is re written to be improve the paper quality and readability based on the reviewer comment. Some paragraphs have been added. There are some references have been added to the literature part in Section 1 (Introduction) to strength the literature review. Furthermore, a comparative with previously published articles in this research area is provided in Table 3. Kindly, check pages No. (1, 2, 3, and 4). Comment-3: Elaborate literature review section and incorporate recent references as: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4056135; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2022.06.010; 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3202907; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12652-021-03403-6. Response-3: Thank you for this comment. The suggested papers have been cited and they were helpful. The literature review section is elaborated in the revised paper. Kindly check (Pages no. 20-23). Comment-4: More explanation is required for the proposed optimization scheme. Response-4: We applied a newly hybrid Jaya-Balloon optimizer (JBO)-based controller for frequency oscillation mitigation in the investigated smart µG. The proposed optimization is compared with the conventional CDM and Jaya. As suggested by the esteemed reviewer, a more explanation is added for the proposed optimization scheme. Kindly check (Pages no. 6 - 12). Comment-5: Rewrite conclusion section. Response-5: The authors are extremely thankful to the reviewer for this thoughtful point. The conclusion section is rewritten to include the numerical results of the proposed work based on the esteemed reviewer suggestion. Kindly check (Pages no. 19). Reviewer 4 Comment-1: How the uncertainty owing to EVs has been considered while designing the proposed controller? Response-1: The authors are thankful to the esteemed reviewer upon his valuable comment. We want to shed the light on this point: Robustness and stability of the Jaya + BE scheme has been explained be Ammar M. Hassan and Tarek Hassan Mohamed in “A novel adaptive load frequency control in single and interconnected power systems” Ain Shams Engineering Journal Volume 12, Issue 2, June 2021, Pages 1763-1773, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.08.024, so the uncertainty owing to EV’s and HPs has been considered while designing the proposed controller. Comment-2: As there are several similar algorithms which can provide the similar results. Why shall we choose the Jaya optimization algorithm, instead of choosing "conventional" optimization solvers such as the Interior-point algorithm and other solvers? Response-2: The authors are extremely thankful to the reviewer for this thoughtful point. A newly hybrid Jaya-Balloon optimizer (JBO)-based controller for frequency oscillation mitigation in the investigated smart µG is applied and compared with conventional techniques. The new methods prove its superiority compared with conventional optimization solvers as provided in the literature. Kindly check (Pages no. 20 - 23). Comment-3: Could the authors comment on what is the difference between the proposed optimization algorithm and the following paper algorithm “A new optimal robust controller for frequency stability of interconnected hybrid microgrids considering non-inertia sources and uncertainties,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 128. Elsevier, p. 106651, Jun. 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2020.106651. Response-3: The authors are extremely thankful to the reviewer for this thoughtful point. The main difference between our manuscript and the mentioned paper can be concluded as follow: The mentioned paper used only an optimal CDM controller to control the virtual inertia connected to power system, but we used 3 controllers: 1- optimal CDM, 2- Adaptive controller based Jaya optimization and 3- Adaptive controller based JBO to control both EVs and HPs units connected to the power system. Comment-4: What criteria have been considered, which led to the mentioned scenario for the test system? Especially the improvement of the frequency with the proposed controller is slightly noticed. See Fig. 7(a). Why we didn’t see sever case change (system parameter variations). Response-4: The authors are extremely thankful to the reviewer for this thoughtful point. For our under study system, the components are small size (diesel generator, turbine and governor). In such case sever parameters variations are not practical and the load disturbance is the effective system difficulty. The authors once again thank the learned Editors and Reviewers for their valuable comments for improving the quality of the manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers for PLOS.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283561.r002
13 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Yogendra Arya, Editor Adaptive frequency control in smart microgrid using controlled loads supported by real-time implementation PONE-D-22-27803R1 Dear Dr. Mohamed, 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, Yogendra Arya 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 #3: 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 #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: No Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 further comment on the revised manuscript. The manuscript can be accepted if all comments are address by other reviewer together. No further comment on the revised manuscript. The manuscript can be accepted if all comments are address by other reviewer together. Reviewer #3: (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: Yes: Utkal Mehta, University of the South Pacific (USP), Fiji Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. Pawan Kumar Pathak ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283561.r003
Formally Accepted
30 Mar 2023 Acceptance Letter - Yogendra Arya, Editor PONE-D-22-27803R1 Adaptive frequency control in smart microgrid using controlled loads supported by real-time implementation Dear Dr. Mohamed: 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 Dr. Yogendra Arya Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283561.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 .