A Systematic Review of Gluten-Free Dough and Bread: Dough Rheology, Bread Characteristics, and Improvement Strategies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General overview.
Manuscript applsci-942784 titled A systematic review of gluten-free dough and bread: dough rheology, bread characteristics, and improvement strategies is very interesting and easy to read with an appropriate background to settle the relevance of the study. However, some minor modifications are need before to publication.
Major comments.
- I would suggest to the authors to add the sensorial evaluation of gluten free bread obtained with different strategy.
- The authors should report the effects of bioactive compounds (phenolic compound and dietary fiber) on dough rheological properties obtained from pseudo cereal or other vegetable addition.
Minor suggestions.
Line 333 Add the reference name in the text when use the sentence supported by or similar and not only the numbers. I suggest to apply this consideration on all manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
the authors would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. Here following, you can find a reply point by point to the reviewers’ suggestions.
Comments from Reviewers:
# Reviewer 1
Rev 1: General overview. Manuscript applsci-942784 titled A systematic review of gluten-free dough and bread: dough rheology, bread characteristics, and improvement strategies is very interesting and easy to read with an appropriate background to settle the relevance of the study.
Answer: the authors would like to thank reviewer 1 for this comment. We really appreciate that our review resulted very interesting and easy to read.
Rev 1: However, some minor modifications are need before to publication. Major comments. I would suggest to the authors to add the sensorial evaluation of gluten free bread obtained with different strategy.
Answer: this review is part of a special issue named “Rheological Properties and Processing Performance of Gluten-Free Food” so we deliberately did not emphasized the sensorial aspect. However, in accordance with the reviewer 1 comments we reported (where the available literature make it possible to do that) the sensorial implications related to the different strategies suggested in the paper. Please see lines 43 – 45; 49–50; 56 – 57; 100 – 101; 215 – 218; 226 – 230; 335 – 336; 370 – 371; 449 – 450; 468 – 469; 496 – 499; 585; 623 – 625; 651 – 653; and 695.
Rev 1: The authors should report the effects of bioactive compounds (phenolic compound and dietary fiber) on dough rheological properties obtained from pseudo cereal or other vegetable addition.
Answer: we added what requested by reviewer 1 at lines 147 – 153, and from line 359 to 363.
Rev 1: Minor suggestions. Line 333 Add the reference name in the text when use the sentence supported by or similar and not only the numbers. I suggest to apply this consideration on all manuscript.
Answer: done, thanks. We added it to line 338 and in the whole manuscript (lines 107, 165, 216, 218, 221, 226, 234, 235, 243, 271, 290, 296, 311, 317, 385, 406, 416, 417, 423, 433, 445, 446, 448, 450, 451, 457, 470, 481, 482, 484, 504, 506, 512, 514, 516, 517, 525, 535, 536, 538, 541, 551, 556, 566, 581, 586, 589, 592, 607, 612, 614, 615, 622, 623, 636, 643, 651, 656, 657, 658, 671, 675, 679, and 682.
Reviewer 2 Report
This review article is about gluten-free doughs and bakery products, rheological characteristics and technological challenges to obtain high-quality products. In this manuscript are discussed alternative ingredients (hydrocolloids, enzymes, emulsifiers, and alternative sources of protein) that can mimic the viscoelastic properties of the gluten, other innovative strategies, such as high pressure, using heat to dry flour, and sourdough fermentation.
Comments to authors:
82 line: Title of Figure 1 should be on the same page as figure.
117 line: Instead “The recent” it would be better to use "over the last few years" or just "recently".
164 line: “3 x 105 to 3 x 106” it seems should be 1053 and 1063
The discussion part is interesting and useful for other researches, it provides specific examples of problem solving, but in Section 3 are too many textbook materials. For example composition of starch – this is interesting for students, because it is basic knowledge.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
the authors would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. Here following, you can find a reply point by point to the reviewers’ suggestions.
Comments from Reviewers:
# Reviewer 2:
Rev 2: This review article is about gluten-free doughs and bakery products, rheological characteristics and technological challenges to obtain high-quality products. In this manuscript are discussed alternative ingredients (hydrocolloids, enzymes, emulsifiers, and alternative sources of protein) that can mimic the viscoelastic properties of the gluten, other innovative strategies, such as high pressure, using heat to dry flour, and sourdough fermentation. Comments to authors: 82 line: Title of Figure 1 should be on the same page as figure.
Answer: done, thanks. Please see line 82.
Rev 2: 117 line: Instead “The recent” it would be better to use "over the last few years" or just "recently".
Answer: done, thanks. Please see line 118.
Rev 2: 164 line: “3 x 105 to 3 x 106” it seems should be 1053 and 1063
Answer: we would like to thank the reviewer 2 for this important indication. We checked the referenced book and we corrected. Please see line 169. Thanks.
Rev 2: The discussion part is interesting and useful for other researches, it provides specific examples of problem solving, but in Section 3 are too many textbook materials. For example composition of starch – this is interesting for students, because it is basic knowledge.
Answer: we are glad that the discussion section was judged by reviewer 2 as interesting and useful, thanks. Regarding the section 3, we agree with reviewer 2, however, our aim was to provide a review readable and understandable from the widest possible audience and, despite we agree that section 3 contains basic knowledge on gluten-free dough, we would like to keep it in the paper since it could help readers who lack of the essential information of this topic.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript corrected according most suggestion
