Reviewer A Comments:

==================
Changes which must be made before publication:

Q1. The material for forecasting wind power generation is interesting. However, the paper is
presented very badly and should be rewritten with correct English and grammar.
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

Q2. The author should also explain as to what is the contribution and novelty in the paper. ELM
has been used by many authors and so what is new in this paper.
Ans. This paper proposes a new variant of ELM. i.e. R-ELM based wind power prediction
algorithm which utilizes both the wind power and wind speed as inputs. Adding to it a new
hybrid neural network wind power prediction algorithm trained by Levenberg- Marquardt
algorithm has also been proposed in this paper. The idea for development of the proposed
prediction algorithms are new and novel approachs in the field of wind power forecasting.

Q3. Why the author has also used speed. It is suggested to use only the historical power data for
forecasting wind power generation.
As a matter of fact, the wind power that is generated directly dependents on the cube of the
available wind speed.
So a new concept is taken into consideration by a combined input of wind power and wind speed
is fed to the model.

Reviewer B Comments:
==================

Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are not essential for publication:
The authors have used different variants of ELM for wind power forecasting and also its
volatility. Although there is no significant contribution, the paper may be accepted with major
revision. If the authors improve the paper by thorough revision clearly identifying the
contribution and following the reviewer comments describing the following points:

Q1. The paper has been written very badly. The paper should revise thoroughly and the entire
text should be rewritten in a proper manner and in one tense only. There is no uniformity in
writing the English language.
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

Q2. The paper has not been well presented.

Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

Q3. There are numerous grammatical and syntax errors and need significant English correction.
Ans: The whole paper has been proof read and appropriate corrections have been implemented in
the manuscript.

4. The abstract should be rewritten clearly identifying the approach proposed by the author.
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

5. Some short forms as well as full forms have written many times in the entire text of the paper.
For exp: Extreme learning machine (ELM), Hybrid linear and nonlinear network (HNN).
All the short forms should be defined first and the short forms should be used in the rest of the
text.
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

6. In the abstract: R-ELM is defined as ridge ELM. Again in the fourth paragraph of the
Introduction section R-ELM is defined for random hidden layer feature mapping based mode
ELM. Please check ?
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

7. In introduction section: Fifth paragraph: In Section II, Wind energy has become ?
check the sentence.
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

Q8. In the same line Section II should be replaced with Section-2.

Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

9. Multiple words and sentences have been used to describe the same meaning; check Section 2.5
and rewrite.
Ans. Section 2.5 is not available in the paper. In Section 2 appropriate corrections have been
implemented in the manuscript.

10. In eqn.(1) J is defined as hidden layer and again hidden layer is defined as L . Verify?
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

11. Before eqn.(5) : What is SLFN identified for?

Ans:

SLFN is known as single- hidden layer feed-forward neural networks. Appropriate

corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

12. After eqn. (5) correct the two sentences (The inputs to the HNN. To find the error) ,
also remove the word layer before through .
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

Q13. After eqn.(6) remove the repeated word W is the weight vector
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

14. After eqn.(9) Check the sentence (this neural network will be designated by HNNLMA).
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

15. What is HNNLMA defined for?

Ans: Appropriate correction has been implemented. HNNLMA is Hybrid neural network with
levenberg-Marquardt algorithm

16. In Section -3 : correct the first sentence (a powerful. Type problem).

Ans: Appropriate correction has been implemented.

17. In Section 4 (first line) 4 should be replaced as four.

Ans: Appropriate correction has been implemented.

18. In section 5, 2nd paragraph: correct the sentence Fig40020 represent account and also
replace Fig.40020 with Fig.4.
Ans: Appropriate correction has been implemented.

19. Replace the heading of subsection 6.1 (Performance assessment using ten minutes data).
Ans. This section 6 has been modified and 2 subsections are there. One for 10 minutes
performance assessment and second is for hourly performance assessment.

20. The conclusion section has not been numbered.

Ans: Appropriate correction has been implemented.

21. The conclusion needs rewriting.

Ans: Appropriate correction has been implemented.

22. The paper needs thorough check up.

Ans: The whole paper has been proof read and appropriate corrections have been implemented in
the manuscript.

23. References have not been written properly, the author should check all the references.
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

24. Merge sub-section 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 into section 4.
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

25. There is no use of another section Section-8. The details of section.8 should be used in result
analysis.
Ans: Appropriate correction has been implemented in the manuscript.

26. The captions of all figures should be defined clearly identifying method used for prediction.
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

27. In some figures the Mape should be replaced with MAPE. There is no consistency and
uniformity, it should be checked.
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

28. The forecasted figures show as if there is very small errors, but from the Tables, it is showing
more errors, please check and verify.
Ans: Figures and tables are verified and checked properly and appropriate corrections have been
implemented in the manuscript.

29. The forecasting figures should be verified properly?

Ans: The figures have been verified properly and appropriate corrections have been implemented
in the manuscript.
.

30. The paper should be shortened by removing multiple sentences.

Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.
Reviewer-C
RECOMMENDATION :
Reconsider after major revisions
Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are not essential for publication:
The paper addresses an important issue but the presentation needs lot of improvement. The
contribution over earlier work needs to be specifically emphasized. A flow chart should be
added, and each block, data collection, data normalization and pre processing, etc etc should be
described independently. The paper need a complete re-write and needs to adopt a new
presentation style to make it interesting.

1. Give full form of GARCH

Ans: Appropriate correction has been implemented in the manuscript.
2. Use of PSO for wind power forecasting: references cited [5,6] are incorrect.
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

3. There are language errors which need correction.

Ans: The whole paper has been proof read and appropriate corrections have been implemented
in the manuscript.

4. Many typing mistakes: Ex: Fig.40020. 'Rainy' should be 'rainy season' in figure captions.
Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

5. Figure captions beginning with "A week" should be corrected.

Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

6. Conclusions need to be rewritten to highlight contribution.

Ans: Appropriate corrections have been implemented in the manuscript.

Changes which must be made before publication:

The paper addresses an important issue but the presentation needs lot of improvement. The
contribution over earlier work needs to be specifically emphasized. A flow chart should be
added, and each block, data collection, data normalization and pre processing, etc etc should be
described independently. The paper need a complete re-write and needs to adopt a new
presentation style to make it interesting.