There are several voltage DC-DC boosting techniques, and each technique has several approaches and circuits with their own advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, it is quite debatable which boosting technique is good for voltage conversion since some have common advantages and disadvantages.
Nowadays, it has become a general trend among reviewers to reject the article with the reason that "another converter has better voltage gain with fewer components" without looking at the actual superiority of the proposed converter. For example, if the author compares the proposed converter with 10 recent similar converters, then reviewers say the author didn't compare with 11, 12,... converters and reject the article without looking at the main approach.
The question is, is it only about the high voltage gain and a smaller number of devices without looking at the ratings of the devices? Obviously, no.
How to deal with reviewers like this one who try to divert the path and contribution of an article? Another sad story is that the editor gives the decision without understanding whether the given comments are relevant or not.
Hi Mahajan Sagar Bhaskar Ranjana,
I consider that the acceptance of an article is 90% defined by its Introduction. It is important to describe a number of current research background and at the end of this description, differentiate between that research background and the proposed work, using words like "however". Also, use sentences such as "The contributions of this work with respect to the cited literature are:" and give some specific items. These items could refer to a qualitative improvement in the performance of the converter, for certain operating conditions, due to the proposed technique, or a more compact converter topology, for instance. I think the key is to be concise and clear in mentioning the contributions without leaving any doubts.
The editors should evaluate the comments of the reviewers, although many times they do not have time and therefore reject articles.
I wish you success with your article!
Regards,
Rodrigo
Sometimes, you can appreciate the reviewer's comment and remind him of the scope and focus area of your research and then add on your contributions to that focus area and finish on the relevance or impact of the reviewer's pointed aspects in the context of your contributions. Whether they are relevant to your contributions or not and to what extent?
Maybe it helps.
As a researcher interested in this specific topic, I must say that I am always up to a good discussion, as long as the reviewers are reasonable. It seems that most authors focus on choosing a winning topology in terms of the highest voltage gain.
In my opinion, this is not the only aspect that matters in the conception of novel topologies. A plethora of works is available in the recent literature, but most structures are simply not feasible for practical applications. Other issues like the component count, voltage stresses, and the existence of a common ground involving the source, load, and switches, among others should be really taken into account. Anyway, every converter has its own advantages and disadvantages from this point of view.
Besides the comparative tables found in most articles on non-isolated high step-up dc-dc converters, cost functions seem to be an appropriate metric as typically used in the evaluation of multilevel inverters.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSII.2020.3017338
When I first published on this subject in the early 2010s, there were only a few works available. I see that it is much harder to publish articles in reputable journals nowadays.
Sorry, this is the correct reference:
Article A 15-Level Switched-Capacitor Multilevel Inverter Structure ...