Journal Name Journal of Applied and Emerging Sciences

Manuscript Code

Receiving Date

Acceptance Date

Publication Date

Reviewer Dr. Nadeem Jelani

Title of paper Post National Grid Reinforcement Analysis of QESCO Network for
Reliable and Optimal Operation
Summary of Reviewers Comments

Tha manuscripts presents the analysis of QESCO network for the optimized operation using the
power flow techniques. The paper is written in good flow and is easy to follow. However, the
quality can be further improved by incorporating the following comemnts:

General comments:
1: The absratct section look too long. The text size of this section can be reduced to 200 words.
2:The 2nd paragragh in the introduction section carries the information that has already been
mentioned in the abstract. The repitition of the information must be avoided.
3: In the results and discussion section, most of the data is preneted in tables and the actual
discussion on the results is not substantial. Can the tables be moved to a new sections called
Appendix?
4: Commas and Pauses are not taken care of throughout the manuscript. This makes the paper
look average. Please use the commas wherever required.
5: First seven lines of the conlusion section are again repeating the information that has been
presented before in the paper. The conclusion section must be crisp and should not have any
general information.

Technical:

1: On page 9 some of the voltages as appended below are very low, why so?

26 9760 Q.S.ULLA 132.00 0.6481 85.543

27 9765 MUSAFRPR 132.00 0.4658 61.491

28 9768 G.H.ZAI 132.00 0.5241 69.178

29 9770 ZHOB 132.00 0.4359 57.538

 2: Please elaborate the results further to make a better understanding of your work for the reader
in the discussion section.

3: Please add few more upto date references.

Originality: High Technical Quality: High Significance: High

English/Gramatical mistakes: Average Figure quality: Average

Discussion: Average (Please see my comments), more discussion of the results is required.

Problem statement & objectives: Average References: Need few more latest
references (see my comments)
Recommended in same status:
Recommended with minor suggestions: I would recommend to accept the paper for
publication if the comments/observations are answered propely.
Recommended with major suggestions:
Rejected: