Morpho-Physiological Traits and Phytochemical Compositions of Coffea canephora Beans from Lampung for Various Harvesting Stages and Soaking Durations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Coffea canephora, commercially known as Robusta variety coffee, is one of the most important species of the genus Coffea. Obtaining a good quality final product requires great care during cultivation and processing. In particular, the post-harvest processing method can affect the morphophysiological characteristics and taste of the coffee, as well as influence the phytochemical composition of the coffee. In this work, the morpho-physiological character and the phytochemical composition of Canephora coffee beans in the various harvesting and soaking time stages were studied.
Overall the manuscript is well organized and the experimentation provides useful data.
However, some modifications are required as follows.
Line 3: Italicize the name of the species. Check throughout the text.
Lines 77-91: Remove this descriptive paragraph (2.2. Research Implementation) from the Materials and methods section and add it in the Results section. In the Materials and Methods section, briefly describe the characteristics of the used samples (type, quantity, duration of treatment), which can also be added to the previous paragraph.
Line 136: Please add full names. For greater clarity, the first time an abbreviation is used in a text it is necessary to use the full name first followed by the acronym in brackets (the note reported in Table 1 is found later in the text and it is correct to leave it there too).
The conclusions are a bit poor. The authors should integrate them with future perspectives deriving from the obtained results.
In the References section, check that the articles listed are complete and follow the Instructions to Authors.
The manuscript is easily readable in regards to the English language.
Author Response
Point 1: Line 3: Italicize the name of the species. Check throughout the text.
Response 1: We have revised on line 3
Point 2:
Lines 77-91: Remove this descriptive paragraph (2.2. Research Implementation) from the Materials and methods section and add it in the Results section. In the Materials and Methods section, briefly describe the characteristics of the used samples (type, quantity, duration of treatment), which can also be added to the previous paragraph.
Response 2: We have revised on line 78-90
Point 3:
Line 136: Please add full names. For greater clarity, the first time an abbreviation is used in a text it is necessary to use the full name first followed by the acronym in brackets (the note reported in Table 1 is found later in the text and it is correct to leave it there too).
Response 3: We have revised and put on method in line 103 to 106
Point 4:
The conclusions are a bit poor. The authors should integrate them with future perspectives deriving from the obtained results.
Response 4: already revised
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Morpho-Physiological traits and phytochemical compositions of Canephora coffee bean from Lampung on various harvesting stage and soaking duration.” assess several parameters of one particular coffee bean with two different harvesting methods and soaking durations. Apart from the English of the manuscript, which is poorly in places and needs to be seriously changed (e.g. line 151-152), the manuscript does not emphasis a “new” contribution to the field. In fact, the discussion cites several papers, which already stated the results of the present manuscript. I suggest to the authors to rewrite the abstract/introduction to point out why in the vast research of Robusta coffee, their study is worth publishing.
General comments:
I recommend to have a table with harvest time and soaking duration in the methods section, to facilitate the interpretation of e.g. H1S2 in the written results section.
Abbreviations should be listed at the first use and then consistently used only as the abbreviation e.g. Line 204.
Why is the colouration of the coffee bean relevant to its quality?
Table 1: It would be better to have the traits (e.g. length) before and after drying next to each other, similar to Table 2.
Is the harvest at two different times or do the authors refer to the harvesting method, selecting all or only ripe fruit? In either case the harvest time should be mentioned in the method section.
Why do the authors list so many decimal places? This seems to be a common feature in young researchers and indicates a lack of thought behind the significance of the results presented. From a scientific point of view 54.9% is perfectly sufficient compared to 54.877%.
If you use e.g. various, then the nouns afterwards need to be plural. This needs to be corrected also in the title.
Line 151-152: The traits do not affect the treatments. It is the other way around.
In the English language, please, use “.” as a decimal point, as “,” indicates the separator for thousand.
Author Response
Point 1: I recommend to have a table with harvest time and soaking duration in the methods section, to facilitate the interpretation of e.g. H1S2 in the written results section.
Response 1: Already put the table on the method section
Point 2: Abbreviations should be listed at the first use and then consistently used only as the abbreviation e.g. Line 204.
Response2 : already revised
Point 3: Why is the colouration of the coffee bean relevant to its quality?
Response 3: Explained in line 276-278
Point 4: Table 1: It would be better to have the traits (e.g. length) before and after drying next to each other, similar to Table 2.
Response 4: already revised
Point 5: Is the harvest at two different times or do the authors refer to the harvesting method, selecting all or only ripe fruit? In either case the harvest time should be mentioned in the method section.
Response: Already explained in material preparation section
Point 6: Why do the authors list so many decimal places? This seems to be a common feature in young researchers and indicates a lack of thought behind the significance of the results presented. From a scientific point of view 54.9% is perfectly sufficient compared to 54.877%.
Response 6 : already revised all
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article entitled “Morpho-Physiological Traits and Phytochemical Compositions of Canephora Coffee Bean from Lampung on Various Harvesting Stage and Soaking Duration” by Maxisell, et al described the observed of morpho-physiological: size, weight, color, moisture content, yield and phytochemical conditions (TPC, TFC and antioxidant activity) of Canephora coffee beans obtained from various stages of harvest and soaking time using a completely randomized design (CRD).
Some results are interesting. In order to improve its quality and readability, several following advice should be considered.
1. In line 76, add description of harvest time
2. L87: what the meaning of "washed until coarse??"
3. L.96: Do you mean “The examination of morphological bean trait using Kusolwa method....??”
4. For each TPC assay, CC assay and AA examination: Explain how to make the extract sample and the concentration? Also explain the data process, calculate the %inh, etc
5. add the spec of spectrophotometer
6. for Table 1 and 3 it is better if the data displayed in a bar curve to better describe the difference
7. Please ensure that your revised manuscript, tables and figures follow the journal-specific guidelines.
Author Response
Point 1. In line 76, add description of harvest time
Response 1: already put the explaination in line 78-79
Point 2. L87: what the meaning of "washed until coarse??"
Response 2: already revised in line 87
Point 3, L.96: Do you mean “The examination of morphological bean trait using Kusolwa method....??”
Response 3: Yes, already revised
Point 4. For each TPC assay, CC assay and AA examination: Explain how to make the extract sample and the concentration? Also explain the data process, calculate the %inh, etc
Response 4: already put the explaination in line 144-148
Point 5. add the spec of spectrophotometer
Response 5: already put the spec in line 123
Point 6. for Table 1 and 3 it is better if the data displayed in a bar curve to better describe the difference
Response 6: We choose the data interpretation by the table because we want to see the value for each treatment and don’t want to see the trend that is usually explained by curve, but thank you for the suggestion.
Point 7. Please ensure that your revised manuscript, tables and figures follow the journal-specific guidelines.
Response 7: already revised, thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
see attached file with line by line comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
extensive revision of English required
Author Response
Point 1: #2- title should be revised to ‘Influence of selected harvesting stages and soaking duration on morpho-physiological traits and phytochemical composition of Robusta coffee bean from Lamping, Indonesia’
Response 1: We are not revising it because our focus is on the appearance of morphology, the physiological and phytochemical coffee bean that applied variation of harvesting method and soaking duration
Point 2 : #19- ‘experimental research.’ is grammatically incorrect- rephrase
Response 2: (Revised on 19 line)
Point 3 : #22- soaking duration replace ‘and’ with ‘or’ – i.e. ‘0, 12, 24 or 36 hours’
Response 3: already revised in abstract
Point 4 : #22- rephrase the statement ‘the main observations..’ for grammatical flow
Response 4: Already Revised
Point 5 : #20-22- no definition of ‘control’ in the experimental design
Response 5: our experiment don’t have purpose to comparing the treatments to control, we concern to get the optimal combination so we choose DMRT as the post-hoc analysis.
Point 6 : #25- unclear at what duration the comparisons were done for bean size weight, TPC, CC. also indicate absolute mean/SD values for the mentioned variables.
Response 6: SD values only put on TPC, AA and CC because those variable related to laboratory mechanism that a bit different with size observing so SD is one of parameter to validate the value
Point 7: #27-28- unclear how the harvest stage/soaking time affected the colour – statement too general
Response 7: Revised
Point 8: #29- effect of soaking not specified- decline or increase?
Response 8 : already revised
Point 9 :#30-31- the conclusion is incomplete- no mention of any potential interactive effects between harvest stage and soaking duration, even under results. Both parameters interpreted independently, which may be erroneous in the conclusion
Response 9: already revised
Point 10 : #35– usually botanica name comes after common name i.e. Robusta (Coffea anaphora)
Response 10: revised already
Point 11: #35-ff.. the whole introduction section needs revision of grammar, syntax and reference citation e.g. line 41 we have [3][4] in text which should be corrected alongside other reference citations.
Response 11 : for grammar already revised
Point 12 : #64-65- effect of soaking on morpho-physiological traits and taste mentioned- is there a good reason why the authors did not assess cupping quality of the coffee, which is a critical determinant in coffee trade? This is important for the paper to broaden the application of the tested approach
Response 12: We only focus on the morphology, physiological and phytochemical characters on this research, it’ is possible for the next research.
Point 13: #67-69- check grammar, syntax – subject, verb, object
Response 13: already checked
Point 14: #71-76- check grammar, syntax – subject, verb, object
Response 14: already checked
Point 15: #77- ‘Research Implementation’ should be Experimental design. Preferably use process flow char to clearly describe the steps of samples handling and preparation
Response 15: already revised in line 78 to 91
Point 16: #83- include model, make of the pulper machine
Response 16 : already put in line 83
Point 17:#84-86- justify why term’ soaking’ was chosen instead of ‘fermentation’ as it is the norm in wet processing of coffee. How much water/bean ratio was applied during the process?
Response17: because fermentation in coffee has many method for example soaking, keep in the box or sack without
water.
Point 18: #88- include model, make of the oven, also temp can’t be fixed at 50oC, justify why 48 hrs was chosen for the drying process
Response 18: This is common drying process in coffee bean to keep the bean quality
Point 19: #98- Formula for bean weight unclear- the terms not defined e.g., 0% moister content
Response 19: already revised
Point 20: #105- check, we have no plural for ‘composition’
Response 20: done revised
Point 21: #127- no of replicates not mentioned under stats analysis
Response21: already put in line 99-100
Point 22: #135-ff- general comment on results – with no mention of control under experimental design, it’s difficult to comprehend the trend/ implication of the data sets. For clarity, authors need to identify the control and present the results vs the control. This applies to the discussion section which is not anchored on control vs treatments, hence hindrance to meaningful interpretation and conclusion. This should also include any interactive effects from the statistical analysis.
Response22 : This is using CRD design without factorial. So our purpose is not to see the interaction between harvesting methode and soaking. We concern to look the best combination that performed by morpho-physi and phytochemical.
Point 23: #135- 136- LBD, WBD, TBD, LAD, WAD not defined in earlier methodology section
Response 23: already put on method
Point 24: #136-138- mention the traits of interest and the respective values
Response 24 : revised
Point 25: #141-142- specify the respective values of length, width, thickness
Response 25: already put on table 2
Point 26:#146-148- BD weight -mention the values obtained
Response 26: already revised
Point 27: #152-154 - specify the respective BD values
Response 27: already revised
Point 28: #155-156 - table 1 to be moved close to line 141-142 before mention of table 2. Table 1 require major formatting of the data sets. Use of periods instead of comma in the numbers must be implemented to avoid confusion e.g., 14,55 should be 14.55 and all letter notations be superscript
Response 28: already revised for all table
Point 29: #166- see comments above on table 1
Response 29: Done revision
Point 30: #180-181- insert the respective L* values in the statements
Response30 : done revision
Point 31: #192-193- see comments in table 1
Response 31: Done
Point 32: #205-206- what is the direction of the effect – decline or increase? , what is the control?
Response 32: we are not put control for the research. We use DMRT post-hoc to compare for each treatment not only to control.
Point 33: #209-210- indicate respective values for AA and other parameters
Response 33: Already Revised
Point 34: #214-215- table 4- see comments in table 1
Response34 : Already Revised
Point 35: #226-246- check grammar, tenses. The entire section should be specify the data for control vs treatments and explain the underlying reasons for variations and compare with literature. Currently whole section is mixed up. Were there any interaction effects between harvesting maturity and soaking duration?
Response 35: the grammar already checked, and for interaction we are not observed about that because we are not using factorial method for the experimental design
Point 36: #294- conclusion must clearly bring out control vs treatments observations, any interactions between maturity vs soaking on morpho-physiological and phytochemical characteristics as commented above.
Response 36: already revised
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors asnwered all of my minor comments. However, the novelty/new contribution to the field is till only listed in one sentence of the abstract.
Reviewer 3 Report
authors have improved the manuscript sufficiently according to the recommendations
