Integration of Sensor Fusion to Enhance Quality Assessment of White Brine Cheeses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract:

The main characteristics are the cheese considered in the study could be mentioned in the abstract at least once, that way the readers could get connected to the study easily. i.e., color, texture, ripeness.

Introduction : 

In the beginning the paragraph lengths are too short. Unless specific reason, they can actually be presented at a reasonable length. Also, there is scope for condensing the introduction section by removing the obvious statements as in Line # 31-33 and several other not necessarily adding value to the scope of the study.

Materials and methods:

It would be great to start this section with a description of the design of the experiment - how many samples, how many quality and other main characteristics, the type of the sensor data, any statistical analysis needed and conducted. 

Line # 129: the object of the research are samples - please review this line

Line #132 to 134 are repetitive and already covered in the introduction section.

Minor sentence reorganisation would improve the readability.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the members of the editorial and reviewer boards for their objectivity and accuracy in evaluating the materials presented in the article, for the positive evaluation of the results of the work, and especially for the advice and recommendations for our research. We consider the remarks made regarding technical errors, insufficiently substantiated methods and tools and partial omissions to be justified.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read the manuscript, and I commend your efforts.

The Authors followed the fundamentals for modeling in most of the aspects.

I have some comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. Below are the descriptions:

There are several fundamental issues that should be addressed before the work can be considered suitable for a comprehensive and efficient peer review. Greater care must be taken in the organization, presentation, and internal review process. Numerous errors, both logical and technical, permeate the current draft. This suggests a more-rigorous screening by the authors, especially the corresponding author, is needed. It is not the role of the reviewer to identify and correct fundamental writing errors. Part of the authors' responsibilities is ensuring the work is presented clearly and addressing such issues, facilitating the review process. With proper attention to detail and strengthening the writing and technical aspects, the scientific contribution can be reviewed more efficiently. The following is a list to check; however, the authors need to check the whole document:

Line 149: change "5 gof raw" to "5 g of raw"

Line 188: "Baycheva et al. [11].The" to "Baycheva et al. [11]. The"

Line 226: "Figure 1shows" to "Figure 1 shows"

Line 230: "areextractedfeatures" to "are extracted features"

Line 297: "correlated.In" to "correlated. In"

Line 315: "training.In" to "training. In"

Line 322: "model.When" to "model. When"

Line 339: "reflected.SE" to "reflected. SE"

I will highlight the lines from here: Lines 373, 374, 380, 386, 392, 397, the title of Figure 5, 410, 419, 429, 450, 461, 468, 475, 482, 539, and 549.

In line 140: It may be a typo, or I could not understand it well. Based on the table, M2 shows 1.5 in Fats, of which saturated fat, %. Could it be 15 instead of 1.5?

Equations 1-9, 10-21, and 22-33. Could you add a paragraph to describe the equations and the terms? You may have forgotten to add the terms since you added them to equations 34-36.

Lines 250 and 252. Can you add the definitions before the acronyms?

Are the values presented in section 3.6 the results using the prediction set (the 30%)?

Figure 6 and Figure 7. It is better to locate the labels of each figure (a, b, c, and d) within each figure rather than showing them at the bottom of each figure. It took me a while to figure out where the labels were located.

I hope my comments help to improve the manuscript.

The authors have done a good job!

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the members of the editorial and reviewer boards for their objectivity and accuracy in evaluating the materials presented in the article, for the positive evaluation of the results of the work, and especially for the advice and recommendations for our research. We consider the remarks made regarding technical errors, insufficiently substantiated methods and tools and partial omissions to be justified.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx