A Study of Application and Comparison of Thermal Drying and Freeze Drying of Fresh Edamame Seeds in the Analysis of Seed Composition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript is about the drying of edamame seeds using three different drying methods. The
The statement of the problem is correct. The conclusions are related to the objective, and the results.
But the references are as (author, year) in the text, while in the list they appear with number and order of appearance. It is difficult to check if they coincide between text and list of references. According to instructions of authors, in the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ] and in the reference list, they appear with number of appearance. Instructions for Authors suggest using Abbreviated Journal Name.
Check the use of italics for scientific names in References 33 and 37
Line 89 complete the objective “using different drying methods”
Relocate Table 1 near where it is mentioned. Do the values reported in Table 1 have variations? Are they average values? Do they have standard deviation?
Line 12 What do you mean with “All following tables are the same.”
Line 214 in the footnote of Table 3, describe again the units of each parameter. Please, clarify what you mean with “and NS, Significant and not significant between ground and whole samples at P = 0.05, respectively” Also, you should indicate which test you use to define the differences.
Line 217 Figure 1 description. It is preferable you add letters to identify each component of the figure, and describe it as A) fresh seed…
Line 233 add the statistic test used (Tukey, Fisher…?). Add units for each parameter and description of ADF and NDF. And do the same for Table 5, 6 and 7. It is hard to look at Table 1 to know how each parameter was expressed.
Author Response
Responses to Comments
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript is about the drying of edamame seeds using three different drying methods. The statement of the problem is correct. The conclusions are related to the objective, and the results.
Response: Thanks so much for your positive comments and helpful points and suggestions.
But the references are as (author, year) in the text, while in the list they appear with number and order of appearance. It is difficult to check if they coincide between text and list of references. According to instructions of authors, in the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ] and in the reference list, they appear with number of appearance. Instructions for Authors suggest using Abbreviated Journal Name.
Response: Thank you for advice. The citation format has been changed and all the references have been re-arranged and re-numbered according to the order of appearance for the first time in the text. The titles of references have been changed to abbreviation forms.
Check the use of italics for scientific names in References 33 and 37
Response: The changes have been made.
Line 89 complete the objective “using different drying methods”
Response: The method names were added.
Relocate Table 1 near where it is mentioned. Do the values reported in Table 1 have variations? Are they average values? Do they have standard deviation?
Response: Yes, the values reported in Table 1 are the means with variations. The standard deviations have been added as suggested. The table should be relocated when being printed.
Line 12 What do you mean with “All following tables are the same.”
Response: Originally, we would us it to say that the units of traits or parameters in all the subsequent tables will be the same as indicated in Table 1 when being applied. But that sentence has been removed because the same footnote has been added to all other tables where it is needed as you suggested.
Line 214 in the footnote of Table 3, describe again the units of each parameter. Please, clarify what you mean with “and NS, Significant and not significant between ground and whole samples at P = 0.05, respectively” Also, you should indicate which test you use to define the differences.
Response: As suggested, the footnote has been added, and the changes have been made.
Line 217 Figure 1 description. It is preferable you add letters to identify each component of the figure, and describe it as A) fresh seed…
Response: Changed have been made. Thanks.
Line 233 add the statistic test used (Tukey, Fisher…?). Add units for each parameter and description of ADF and NDF. And do the same for Table 5, 6 and 7. It is hard to look at Table 1 to know how each parameter was expressed.
Response: F or t tests and footnote have been added for Table 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, as advised. Once again, thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper freeze and low- and high-heat drying methods were used to dry fresh edamame seeds of 20 soybean lines and cultivars for analysis of their composition using near-infrared reflectance (NIR) technology. The results indicated that significant differences existed between years of samplings for all seed composition traits investigated.
Thematically the work is interesting for the researchers and professionals and the proposed manuscript is relevant to the scope of the journal.
However, I do not find it appropriate for publication in the Agronomy journal in this form, without any kinetics model, but only after major modifications and clarification from the Authors.
The title is not a clear representation of the manuscript's content. Several drying methods were mentioned, but no model was presented for better explain the experimental results.
The overall organization and structure of the manuscript are not appropriate.
The literature review is comprehensive and properly done.
The novelty of the work must be more clearly demonstrated.
Statistical interpretation of the analytical data must be more properly presented.
There is no kinetics model presented in this investigation? Therefore, this article should be named Preliminary study of ...
Other Specific Comments: The work is properly presented in terms of the language. The results are presented in a logical sequence and the discussion and analysis of the results are properly elaborated. The claims in the section
The main drawback of the paper i s the extent of novelty, or the main novelty in the present work, compared to the works of other researchers? In my opinion, the authors should put additional effort to demonstrate that the present work gives a substantial contribution in the research area.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this paper freeze and low- and high-heat drying methods were used to dry fresh edamame seeds of 20 soybean lines and cultivars for analysis of their composition using near-infrared reflectance (NIR) technology. The results indicated that significant differences existed between years of samplings for all seed composition traits investigated.
Thematically the work is interesting for the researchers and professionals and the proposed manuscript is relevant to the scope of the journal.
Response: Thank you very much for the positive comments and constructive points for revision.
However, I do not find it appropriate for publication in the Agronomy journal in this form, without any kinetics model, but only after major modifications and clarification from the Authors.
Response: Yes, major modifications and clarifications have been made, including correcting the citation format, rearranging and renumbering of references, statistical test methods used, descriptions of trait/parameter units for the tables, additional discussion on the significance and novelty, etc.
The title is not a clear representation of the manuscript's content. Several drying methods were mentioned, but no model was presented for better explain the experimental results.
Response: “A Study of” added to the title as suggested later on.
The overall organization and structure of the manuscript are not appropriate.
Response: Improvement and changes have been made as described above.
The literature review is comprehensive and properly done.
Response: Thanks for the ratification.
The novelty of the work must be more clearly demonstrated.
Response: Thanks for the great idea and suggestion. Additional discussions have been made to demonstrate the significance and novelty of the work.
Statistical interpretation of the analytical data must be more properly presented.
Response: Changes and/or additions have been made to the tables.
There is no kinetics model presented in this investigation? Therefore, this article should be named Preliminary study of ...
Response: “A Study of …” has been added to the Title.
Other Specific Comments: The work is properly presented in terms of the language. The results are presented in a logical sequence and the discussion and analysis of the results are properly elaborated. The claims in the section
Response: Thank for the positive comments again.
The main drawback of the paper i s the extent of novelty, or the main novelty in the present work, compared to the works of other researchers? In my opinion, the authors should put additional effort to demonstrate that the present work gives a substantial contribution in the research area.
Response: Thanks for this point and helpful suggestion. As mentioned above, additional discussions have been made to explain and demonstrate the significance and contributions of the present study to the related work in research area.
