怎么修改文章

透了篇IEEE transactions on power delivery
刚审回，审稿意见如下：
Paper Title: Interaction Studies of Muti-Infeed AC/DC Hybrid Transmission System Using PHIL Simulation

After careful review we have determined that your paper might be of interest for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, after revisions, if those revisions fully and
properly address the concerns of the reviewers. The comments
from the reviewers appearing below may include specific
revisions that are mandatory and other changes suggested. You
may have to make broader changes if necessary based on general
comments provided by the reviewers.

I wish to emphasize that this is not a conditional acceptance.
It is, rather, a recognition by our reviewers and editors that
your paper merits some interest. Your revision will be reviewed by the same reviewers who read the current draft.

Please submit your revised paper within 60 days of receiving this letter.  After 60 days the revision will expire and you will need an extension in order to submit the revised paper.

We encourage you to include a brief explanation of how you responded
to the comments by the reviewers to help expedite our review.
Please include this explanation in the space provided for
"response to reviewers" and "response to editor" when you upload the revision.


Editor Comments for Author:
The paper needs improvements and the comments by the reviewers wold help to reorientate the paper.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
The paper spends a lot of effort explaining an already established method for decoupling electrical networks using travelling wave theory. If not for the application to multi infeed system, the paper deserves to be rejected. The old content which is well established for electromagnetic transient modelling and real time simulation, is repeated (description of TLM method) and takes up most part of the paper. Sections II and III need to be condensed with references made to prior work.

There are some fundamental gaps that need to be addressed prior to this paper being considered again for publication. More description on the simulated network and modelling details will be useful.

The author's claim (I. Introduction) that the PHIL method allows modelling valves to better reflect high frequency transients characteristics of DC systems compared to a fully digital real time simulator needs to be justified with appropriate comparison.

The success of this simulation method depends so much on the interfacing and adequate line length of the decoupling ac lines to provide long enough time delays. The validation of interfacing may need to be presented with close comparison of waveform at discontinuities.  

The test results do not explain the differences in steady state voltage differences and the change in recovery shapes for dc voltage ((even if by a few kVs), alpha and gamma signals. The author need to discuss the reason for these and the why these may be considered acceptable when modelling large HVDC systems.

A useful contribution can be made by this paper if it focuses on the actual issues with the important topic of simulation of multi infeed HVDC system, and by providing further anlaysis and result from such an application. Section V needs to be expanded to provide the description of the exact modelling. For part of the graphs, the timescale can be further expanded to provide a closer view of the comparison.




Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
This paper presents some very useful material to help address the challenges in modeling parts of a large system on two different platforms, namely analog and digital simulation platforms. It also presents some interesting results of possible interactions on a complex multi infeed HVdc system modeled using both platforms.

However the paper has a few deficiencies that need to be addressed before it can be accepted for publication.

1. Firstly it is the grammatical corrections and sentence improvements that can be made in few different places on the paper. Few examples are as follows. It is suggested that the entire paper be proof read for improvement

Page 7 last paragraph first line - Most security rules call for …
Suggested change - Most reliability regulations call for  ….

Page 1 section II first paragraph - sentence starting with the word ‘If’ is incomplete, it needs to be connected with the sentences following it for completion.

Note under table 2 can be better worded. Avoid using vague language such as “head end of the line”

Paragraph preceding the conclusion, sentence on reducing firing angle is a poorly written sentence. I also thing it should be “thus avoiding recurrence of commutation failure”.


2. Figures and graphs are effective in showing the necessary details. However the font size is unreadable on all the figures and graphs. They need to be resized to a larger size.
3. The physical model referred through out the paper as I understand is really a scaled down physical model done on the analog simulator. It would help to clarify what is meant by the physical model. It is also vague as to what is referred to as the ‘hardware’ that is in the loop. It is also not clear if the HVdc schemes modeled on the analog simulator have actual or modeled controls.
4. One other glaring omission is the substantiation of the need for modeling the systems on the two different platforms. I refer to the sentence on page 1 second paragraph that states that the digital valve models are inadequate for high frequency transients. This statement is not supported by the presented results in the paper. They do not also demonstrate convincingly that the missing transients due to digital simulation would largely affect the results. This statement is further contradicted by the commutation failure results of the digitally simulated HVdc links shown in figure 16.
I am more convinced of the need to utilize all available facilities when modeling large and complex systems than the inadequacy of digital models for high frequency transients. However if the authors believe in this fact, I suggest that it be demonstrated by recreating the results of the simple system on an all digital platform as well to show the missing high frequency transients when done so. The graphs on page 6 demonstrate the interfacing accuracy with respect to analog simulation well, but fails to support the need for doing so.

5. As a result of the poor demonstration of the need of PHIL simulation for high frequency transients it becomes difficult to agree with the concluding statement that suggests that without PHIL simulation, multi infeed systems cannot be wells studied for their interactions via the ac system. The concluding statement is some what general for all interactions (includes fundamental frequency interactions) and needs to be only made for commutation failure related interactions even if the need for PHIL simulation for high frequency transients is well established.
6. Figure 16 has a typo on title (d). Some clarification on the following will also improve the quality of the material presented.
a. Reason for why the XiangJiaba-NanHui ±800kV dc link and the Sanxiadixia-WestShanghai ±500kV dc links were chosen to be modeled on the analog simulator?
b. Why the results for the other 2 links modeled digitally are not shown in figure 16? What their responses are and the reasoning for the responses.
c. Response of the 2 dc links modeled on the analog simulator, and their electrical proximities.


Reviewer: 3
Comments to the Author
This paper presents the hardware in loop simulation and its application for multi-infeed HVDC study. The paper presents the setup and modeling of the simulator. The HVDC multi-infeed study is performed by the simulator.  The reviewer have the following comments:

1. The author uses large space to describe the simulator and its modeling. However, the majority of those are known materials.
2. The major subject of the paper, i.e., HVDC multi-infeed, has onlly been described very shortly. The finding of the multi-infeed interaction is nothing novel. Moreover, the advantage of hardware-in-loop compared to the digital counterpart has not been demonstrated.
3. The presentation of the paper is poor. The authors need to be careful in writing.  Especially the figures and their fonts are hard to read.

The paper needs to be substantially revised to focus on the multi-infeed study and show the advantage of the hardware-in-loop simulation.
  

Reviewer: 4
Comments to the Author
This a very interesting paper dealing with mixed signal simulation of HVDC systems.

The paper is well written, and it does a good job explaining the details of the process. The authors have demonstrated that their hybrid approach is effective in revealing certain types of HVDC and AC system interactions.

There are some minor grammatical errors throughout. Also Fig. 11 and 12 could be redrawn to be clearer.

No mandatory changes.

    文章主要是一种新方法（PHIL ）的应用，主要结构是理论+实现+算例仿真+应用，共8页，其中应用的篇幅很少，因为是初步应用（Multi-infeed)，其实主要目的是突出这种方 法。因为introduction里的一句话，中间有两个审稿人都集中在如何验证PHIL这种方法的优势上，另外一个关注应用取得的成果。感觉有些偏离写 这篇文章的初衷。
   但是考虑到毕业的问题，审稿周期的问题，我有些犹豫，因为按照审稿意见修稿工作量比较大，加上最近项目多，修改后也未必会录用，主要是提出的东西不好做 实验，即使做出了也未必是理想结果。考虑到这些，所以我想能否把题目改了，或者避开审稿人的问题，请有经验的前辈指点下。