Advancing Sustainable Innovations in Mulberry Vinegar Production: A Critical Review on Non-Thermal Pre-Processing Technologies
, John-Nelson Ekumah 1,2, Nana Adwoa Nkuma Johnson 1, Jeffrey Appiagyei 5, Mian Shamas Murtaza 1, Bismillah Mubeen 1 and Yongkun Ma 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in the review of the manuscript titled "Harnessing non-thermal pre-processing technologies to enhance mulberry vinegar production: A review."
The introduction to the article is written clearly, it introduces the topic well, and the selection of literature is appropriate. It is completed with the purpose of research.
The scope of the article was correctly defined. The individual elements are well and insightfully written.
I find the entire manuscript interesting and worth attention. The manuscript was a pleasure to read.
Below are some minor comments from the reviewer.
Please standardize the font size in the text in accordance with the journal’s requirements.
Figure 1. Do you have permission to copy drawings and charts?
Figures 1B and 1D are illegible, units are missing from the charts, and percentages are missing in Figure 1D. The quality of the figures is questionable, the resolution of these drawings should be improved.
Line 114. What alcohol?
Line 117. Sterilization at 20 °C? It's barely heating, you can't call it sterilization. A temperature of 80 °C is also pasteurization, not sterilization. Please explain.
Line 260, 333, 588…. Please remove unnecessary spaces.
Line 367. Values of 2.00 and 1.30 log CFU/mL are not undetectable numbers. They are countable!
Table 1 should be modified to make it more readable. The citations are staggered and it is unclear which citation goes to which treatment.
Table 1 is not cited anywhere in the text - reference is missing.
The literature is not prepared in accordance with Sustainability requirements.
I ask the authors to explain in detail how this manuscript fits into the scope of the Sustainability journal.
Author Response
Find attached the response.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review is focusing on Harnessing non-thermal pre-processing technologies to enhance mulberry vinegar production. Please see my suggestions bellow.
The structure of the paper is wrong. You must rethink it. Main text has a single section, and 2 sections of Conclusions and Future directions.
Characters of the main section must be 10 size, Palatino Linotype. See in ex, the text beginning with L164, L223, L401, L410, etc. which are with smaller size.
Figures must be inserted as closest is possible to their first mention in the main text.
L86-100. It is not clear the novelty your Review brings to the field. Please develop it.
Also, the Methodology (included here in the aim of the study) must be developed in a separate new 2nd section, also including a chart/PRISMA type maybe. How was the literature selected? Using which terms? Also, the PRISMA flow chart must be referenced using Page et al. both papers (where this type of graphic is very well described: doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001. and doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003. will help you to provide a correct PRISMA flow chart). Please check the papers above and explain in the best way the criteria used for the literature selection.
L164. Even their advantages, it must be reminded the electromagnetic pollution of the environment due leakage radiation from microwave ovens – I suggest checking and referring to https://doi.org/10.37358/MP.19.1.5128
In the regard of above, I suggest a new section, presenting Advantages and Disadvantages of the used methods – a Table would be relevant.
Figures are blurred. Replace them with best quality ones.
Table 1 is very poor, rare, and too much extended. Find a better way to present it with not so much empty space. The 3rd column must be removed as in the title of the table is already mentioned the mulberry product. Also, remove the dots and in the last column remove the names of the authors as they can be verified in the References section. This Table of 5 pages must be set also 1 line, and it must fit 1 page.
Conclusion on your work is missing. You provided the Conclusions of the original papers.
References must be written in the MDPI style, providing all the info requested by the Instructions for authors.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMust be revised
Author Response
Find the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe manuscript titled "Harnessing non-thermal pre-processing technologies to enhance mulberry vinegar production: A review" submitted by Boasiako et al. the authors tried to complied the comprehensive information,
I have some minor corrections,
check the font size of the manuscript, not the symmetry
Line 86: use NTT
Line 90: first time explain full farm
Line 137-163: The font size is different from the previous paragraph
font size is different alternatively in all paragraph
Line 234: Non-thermal technologies (NTT), first time expalin full form
Line 297: Nguyen and Nguyen
Line 370: define at first use "total phenolic content (TPC)"
from line 386: in this paragrpah, all terms previously explained, so please all abberivation define carefully
Line 418: define first time "Total Phenolic Content (TPC)"
author provide abberivation list at the end ,, but please define all full form at first use
overalll author submitting interesting information
Comments on the Quality of English Language
fine.
Author Response
Find the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors improved their manuscript
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing
