Dear Dr. Nhan Bon,

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 09 2026 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.

• 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,

Zhengmao Li

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 work belongs to the project of the Year 2026 funded by Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education, Vietnam. ”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that 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:

“This work belongs to the project of the Year 2026 funded by Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education, Vietnam.

The funder played a role in the payment of article publication charge, data collection, and report printing.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work belongs to the project of the Year 2026 funded by Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education, Vietnam.

The funder played a role in the payment of article publication charge, data collection, and report printing.”

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.

5. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. 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.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, 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 identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). 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 to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[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?

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Overall, the paper addresses a relevant problem and provides a comprehensive study of optimal placement and operation of PVDGs and SCBs using FGO and AOO on three distribution networks, including a 55-node feeder in Vietnam.

The two-phase structure (design versus operation) and the comparison of AOO against both FGO and a large set of existing algorithms give the work some depth, and the numerical results are clearly in favor of AOO.

To me, the narrative sometimes feels dense and a bit repetitive, and metaheuristics are not convincing enough. Please see my comments below:

1. In terms of logical flow, the Introduction is quite long and the transition from the broad literature review to the specific scope of “two-phase design and operation” is not always smooth. I have two suggestions here:

- For example, Section 1.3 lists “novelties” and then “main contributions” that overlap and could be merged into a more focused, shorter list, directly tied to what is actually done in Sections 2–4.

- You might also help readers by explicitly reminding them at the start of Section 4 how the design phase (peak-hour TAPL, equations (1)–(2)) and the operational phase (24-hour and quarterly energy-loss evaluation) fit together in the overall story.

2. Regarding the model design, why do you use a current-based formulation instead of power-flow-based expressions?

3. On the methodology side, the descriptions of FGO and AOO in Section 3 are mathematically detailed but a bit overwhelming. It might be very, very useful to give a short “high-level” explanation after each update rule, e.g., which parts are mainly responsible for global exploration versus local refinement.

4. Why do you use heuristic algorithms? In power system research, they always use MILP/LP to ensure the optimum of the results. You say your design is "optimal," but you are using a heuristic method, which is somewhat contradictory.

5. The choice of algorithmic parameters in Table 1 (e.g., N_pop = 20–40 and I_max = 200–300, with 50 test runs per case) is reasonable, but currently looks ad hoc. Can you justify? One suggestion (optional but nice to have): show convergence curves (best TAPL versus iteration) for at least one case, as well as average CPU times.

Reviewer #2: This study focuses on Vietnam's AC distribution network and uses two metaheuristic algorithms, FGO and AOO, to optimize the configuration of Photovoltaic Distributed Generators (PVDGs) and Shunt Capacitor Banks (SCBs) for reducing annual energy loss. Although it has a clear application scenario, there are multiple key flaws in research design, case logic, and data presentation, resulting in insufficient scientificity and rigor.

1. In the case of the 55-node power grid in Vietnam, the reactive power injection of SCBs in Case 4 (2070, 2250, 1230 kVar) is much higher than that in other cases, and the engineering feasibility of this configuration and its impact on power grid harmonics are not explained.

2. In the operational phase, only the average daily data of the first month of each quarter is selected, without considering the load fluctuation within the season and the photovoltaic output change under extreme weather, resulting in insufficient data representativeness.

3. When comparing AOO with other algorithms, only the numerical difference of TAPL is listed, and the comparative analysis of core performance indicators such as algorithm convergence speed and computational complexity is not provided.

4. In the case, the PVDG penetration rate is set to 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%, but the basis for selecting this penetration rate range is not explained, and whether it is consistent with the local power grid access standards in Vietnam is not mentioned.

5. The constraint conditions do not consider the installation cost and maintenance cost of PVDGs and SCBs, and only take loss reduction as the goal, lacking economic feasibility analysis, which does not meet the actual engineering needs.

6. The original topological parameters of the 55-node power grid in Vietnam (such as line impedance and node load characteristics) are not fully presented, making it impossible to verify the authenticity and repeatability of the simulation results.

7. The discussion section does not explain why Case 4 performs worse than Case 2 in the third quarter (July), and fails to conduct in-depth analysis of the reasons combined with the seasonal changes of photovoltaic output and load characteristics.

**********

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Optimal Design and Operation of Photovoltage Distributed Generators and Shunt Compensators for the Vietnam Alternative Current Distribution Network to Reduce Annual Energy Loss

PONE-D-25-59933R1

Dear Dr. Nhan Bon,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Zhengmao Li

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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??>

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The author responded well to my questions, the article can be accepted, I hope the author 's future work can be better and better, congratulations

**********

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

**********