Optimization the stochastic optimal reactive power dispatch with renewable energy resources using a modified dandelion algorithm

Naima Agouzoul; Aziz Oukennou; Faissal Elmariami; Mohamed Ebeed; Jamal Boukherouaa; Rabiaa Gadal; Mokhtar Aly; Emad A. Mohamed

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0328170

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 5, 2025
Decision Letter - Chandan Kumar Shiva, Editor PONE-D-25-11087Optimization the Stochastic Optimal Reactive Power Dispatch with renewable energy resources using a Modified Dandelion AlgorithmPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ebeed, 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. ============================== Based on the reviewers' feedback, a major revision is required before further consideration. The Key concerns include clarity in technical language, need for more details on Modified Dandelion Optimizer algorithm, and a refined contribution statement. The scenario selection process and sensitivity analysis need elaboration, along with a detailed discussion on computational complexity, convergence behaviour, and statistical analysis. Figures should be improved. Please address these issues and submit a revised manuscript with a detailed response. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by May 03 2025 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, Chandan Kumar Shiva 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. 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, we expect all author-generated code to 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. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “This study is supported via funding from Prince sattam bin Abdulaziz University project number (PSAU/2025/R/1446).” We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “The author(s) 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. [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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- The paper contains multiple language issues that make the text hard to follow (e.g., “increases the complicities,” “application the proposed algorithm”). Careful proofreading is needed to improve readability and clarity. 2- Some terms and ideas are not clearly defined, like "stochastic fluctuations" and "expected voltage stability." A clearer definition of technical terms would help readers from broader backgrounds. 3- While the enhancements to the Dandelion Optimizer are interesting, the paper would benefit from a more in-depth discussion of why these specific techniques (QOBL, WFM, FDB) were chosen and how they address limitations of the original Dandelion Optimizer. 4- The contribution of the paper compared to other hybrid optimization approaches needs to be more clearly stated. How does this work advance the state of the art in SORPD beyond existing techniques? 5- The paper mentions 15 scenarios for representing load and RER uncertainties but does not clarify how these scenarios were selected or reduced. More insight into the scenario generation and reduction process would add credibility to the stochastic modeling. 6- A sensitivity analysis on the number of scenarios would strengthen the argument for the robustness of the proposed approach. 7- The paper should discuss the computational complexity of the MDO algorithm and how it scales with larger systems. Convergence behavior and runtime performance compared to the other optimization techniques should be clearly presented, ideally with convergence plots. 8- While the results seem promising, the paper would benefit from a more detailed discussion of why the MDO algorithm outperforms others. What specific characteristics of the enhanced MDO contribute to its superior performance? 9- Statistical analysis of the results (mean, variance, confidence intervals) would provide a more rigorous comparison between optimization techniques. 10- figure 9 is repeated 11- improve figure 1, 9, 10 Reviewer #2: 1- More details are needed about problem formulation. 2- Title of 3.2 “ Modified Dandelion optimizer “ Title of 4.2 “ Modified DANDELION OPTIMIZER “ are same. 3- Numbers of titles and subtitles should be corrected. 4- At figure 12 , give a reason, why BWO algorithm is the highest value of SEPL (MW) than other algorithms. ****** 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: Yes: Khairy Sayed Reviewer #2: Yes: Loai Saad Eldeen NASRAT ******** [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.0328170.r001
Revision 1
2 May 2025 Author Response The response to reviewer comments has been uploded Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328170.r002
Decision Letter - Chandan Kumar Shiva, Editor PONE-D-25-11087R1Optimization the Stochastic Optimal Reactive Power Dispatch with renewable energy resources using a Modified Dandelion AlgorithmPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ebeed, 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. ==============================<h1>Editor's Decision: Minor Revision</h1> Based on the reviewers' comments, this manuscript requires minor revisions before publication. Both reviewers identified issues with formatting, language clarity, and technical content. Key improvements needed include proofreading for language errors, clearer definitions of technical terms, justification for the proposed algorithm modifications, more rigorous comparison with existing techniques, detailed analysis of computational complexity, and correction of formatting inconsistencies and figure issues. Please address the duplicate Figure 9, improve Figures 1, 9, and 10, and explain the BWO algorithm's higher SEPL value. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 05 2025 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, Chandan Kumar Shiva Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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.0328170.r003
Revision 2
19 Jun 2025 Author Response Comment 1: “Both reviewers identified issues with formatting, language clarity, and technical content.” Authors’ Response: The authors appreciate the editor and reviewers’ comments. A thorough proofreading was carried out. Linguistic and grammatical errors were corrected. Additional explanations have been added to clarify ambiguous terms. The formatting of the manuscript has been revised. Comment 2: “justification for the proposed algorithm modifications “ Authors’ Response: The authors appreciate the editor and reviewers’ comments. The limitations of the original Dandelion Optimizer (DO) are that it prone to local optima and suffers from stagnation in case of solving the nonlinear objective functions like ORPD. In this regard, three modifications have been integrated for improving the searching ability of the DO using FDB, QOBL, and WFM. Comment 3: “More rigorous comparison with existing techniques “ Authors’ Response: The authors appreciate the editor and reviewers’ comments. A comparsion between the proposed algorithm and the other techniques has included in Table 8 in the revised paper. Comment 4: “detailed analysis of computational complexity “ Authors’ Response: The authors appreciate the editor and reviewers’ comments.” It should be mentioned that the proposed MDO has a high level of computational complexity, because the DO is based on three stages, including rising, landing, and descending. Hence, the computational complexity of the DO is O(M×T×pop×Dim×fit), where M, T, pop, Dim, and fit are the current optimal solution, the maximum iteration number, the number of populations, the problem dimension, and the objective function [87]. The MDO is based on three modifications, including the WFM, QOBL, and FDB, Consequently, the computational complexity of the MDO is O(M×T×pop×Dim×fit +3(M×T×pop×Dim×fit)). Hence, the computational complexity of the MDO is O(4(M×T×pop×Dim×fit)).” This explanation is added on the manuscript between lines 508 and 515. Comment 5: “Figure 9 is repeated.” Authors’ Response: The authors appreciate the editor and reviewers’ comments. Figure 9 has been updated to avoid repetition. Comment 6: “improve figure 1, 9, 10.” Authors’ Response: The authors appreciate the editor and reviewers’ comments. The quality of the mentioned figures has been improved on the manuscript. Comment 7: “Please explain the BWO algorithm's higher SEPL value. “ Authors’ Response: The authors sincerely appreciate the editor's and reviewers’ insightful comments. “The BWO algorithm distributes its candidate solutions widely in the search space to avoid premature convergence and accurately explore potential optimal solutions. While this intensive exploration allows local minima to be avoided, it can also lead to less consistent or higher values of the objective function in some runs. It is important to note that Figure 12 shows the distribution of the objective function, which includes both the objective function and the system constraints. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Editor and Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328170.r004
Decision Letter - Chandan Kumar Shiva, Editor Optimization the stochastic optimal reactive power dispatch with renewable energy resources using a modified dandelion algorithm PONE-D-25-11087R2 Dear Dr. Ebeed, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Chandan Kumar Shiva Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328170.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Chandan Kumar Shiva, Editor PONE-D-25-11087R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ebeed, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Chandan Kumar Shiva Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328170.r006

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 .