Abstract, title and references

● The aim of the paper is clearly presented on abstract; ● Given the type of the paper (article review) analysed in this review, there are no expected results that deserves to be referred in this section; ● The title seems to be relevant, given the subject presented and discussed in the paper; ● The references are quite relevant, and recent as well. The author has followed the journal guidelines, regarding the reference’s presentation style. The main key studies were also included, given the timing of the paper’s submission;

Introduction/background

● The author starts to present some definitions, found on relevant literature, regarding the “smart grids concept. However, he also highlights the inexistence of a widely accepted definition of the concept itself, given the existence of several and different perspectives about the same concept, referred by relevant works found on literature. For that reason, the author, gives a clear understanding of the problem involved in this study, not only by presenting a brief context of the work, but also, by describing what is known around this field of knowledge and what it needs to be explored; ● The research question it’s clear outline, given the aim of the paper; ● By starting to present what has been done around this research topic, the author shows the existence of a gap, which is tackled through the main contribution of the paper. Therefore, the correspondent research question is justified, given what is already known about the topic;

Methods

● The subject’s selection it’s clear; ● The main purpose of the paper is to identify some trends, regarding the collaborative networks, applied on smartgrids context. To do this, the author have presented a map of focus areas, where through the same areas, he has preformed a survey to identify possible trends on each focus area; ● Given this and mainly, the type of the paper, the adopted variables, were properly defined and measured; ● Are the study methods valid and reliable; ● Given the aim of this paper, these criteria it’s not applicable in this case;

Results

● Given the main purpose of this paper, the data are presented in an appropriated way. All the relevant tables and figures are clearly presented. ● Given the aim of this paper, these criteria it’s not applicable in this case; ● The author starts to identify a set of different current research, settled according to the papers found on literature, regarding the smart grids. Then the author identifies the state of the art for each current of research. By defining the state-of-the-art, the author, reinforces the need of developing collaborative networks in smart grids, as well as defines the trends associated with it. The author also presents the drivers to develop such trends;

Discussion and Conclusions

● The author supports the discussion of the results by reviewing the existing literature around the subject covered in this paper and according to the method followed (in this case systematic mapping study). By following this method, he first attempts to know what topics have been covered by the literature, then he tries to structure the area and get an overview of its scope. Therefore, the discussion of the obtained results, are preformed from multiple angles and placed into context without being overinterpreted; ● The conclusions answer the aims of the study; ● Given the purpose of the paper, the conclusions are not only supported by the paper’s results, but also by other works, existing on literature; ● One of contributes given by this paper is precisely the future work that could be performed around the collaborative networks, applied to the smart grids context. Therefore, the limitations identified in this work, are opportunities to reveal future research;

Overall

● The study design was appropriate to answer the aim of the work ● In general, this study has reinforced the role of collaborative networks on developing the smart grids concept, followed by a set of trends identified by the author, based on literature review; ● The major flaw of this article was the justification of the methodology followed. In this case the author, has adopted the systematic mapping, instead of systematic literature review, although without properly define the reasons to do it; ● The article is consistent within itself;

Overall statement or summary of the article and its findings

This is an engaging paper with a robust review that allows not only to reinforce the importance of collaborative networks into the development of smart grids concept, but also to identify several current research fields, followed by some common research trends; However, the method used to achieve such results, could be better justified, namely in terms of its use, rather the other one mentioned in this paper. Addressing this issue will make this paper more impactful.

Overall strengths of the article and what impact it might have in your field

● The guidance, provided by the author to the reader around the entire paper, by starting to present the collaborative networks and smart grids, (initially) as a separate concept, then integrate both, not only based on literature, but also by stablishing links between them;
● The identification of current research fields, followed by the respective state-of-the-art; ● The identification of specific trends, regarding each current research referred above, followed by general trends, regarding the collaborative networks applied to the smart grids as whole;

Specific comments on weaknesses of the article and what could be done to improve it

Major points in the article which needs clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites and/or additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve the article.

1. The justification of the method used to perform the literature review, could be better explained;

Minor points like figures/tables not being mentioned in the text, a missing reference, typos, and other inconsistencies.

1. Nothing to declare;