Online Database for Retrieval Information about Prebiotics and Their Activity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Tha manuscript presents a new database for prebiotics. Albeit the name evokes a comprehensive gallery of prebiotics, the authors claim in the title and over again in the text, that the database is of prEbiotics and of prObiotics. This is contradictory and generates confusion. A database of prEbiotics should provides information on prEbiotics and not on prObiotics. However, I am expected to evaluate the manuscript and not the database. Since the presentation of the database is not really clear, I tried to navigate in the database and I found out that it is not rally easy, and intuitive.  Based on my experience, data obtained in different labs con diverse approaches, whenever using the same medium, are not comparable. The claim of probiotic for a strain is acceptable if scientific evidence of health promoting activity have been demonstrated. In my opinion this database is not useful, and it represent a partial collection of data not really. The evaluation of the manuscript is connected to this aspect.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I am submitting a revised manuscript with ID applsci-784710 to reconsideration for publication in Journal Applied Sciences. The manuscript was corrected according the comments of reviewers. All corrections are listed in the list of responses below.

We hope that our manuscript will be reconsidered for publication in your journal.

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

After the review process, I have several comments: the authors should insert more numerical parameters in the abstract; the authors should split the introduction section into several parts; the authors should insert new references because part of them are too old, more than five years; the authors should insert a paragraph/section in the database and introduction with in vitro/in vivo criteria of strain or product characterization (see the paper: DOI- 10.1007/s13213-013-0734-6);  the authors should verify and make necessary corrections in the references section; the authors should expand the legend of the figures; the authors should present time stability of the database; the authors should keep only the essential figures in the paper and insert more comments about their structure; the authors should present a limitation of the study.

 

Best regards!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I am submitting a revised manuscript with ID applsci-784710 to reconsideration for publication in Journal Applied Sciences. The manuscript was corrected according the comments of reviewers. All corrections are listed in the list of responses below.

We hope that our manuscript will be reconsidered for publication in your journal.

Please see the attachment.

Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The modifications in the paper are not clear.

The reference section should be corrected and the introduction improved with new data that enhance the possibility of the online database. You should have the possibility to insert new data that will expand the information about certain products. I can not access the web page mentioned in the paper, that is an important aspect to understand the significance of the paper.

Best regards!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The manuscript was corrected according the comments. All corrections are listed in the list of responses below.

Please see the attachment.

We hope that our manuscript will be reconsidered for publication in your journal.

Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I do not have any other comments at your paper.

Best regards!