Next Article in Journal
Alkali-Activated Materials with Pre-Treated Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Bottom Ash
Previous Article in Journal
Self-Balancing Power Amplifier with a Minimal DC Offset for Launcher Automation Control Circuits of a Surface-to-Air Missile System
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effect of Rotational Speed and Gap between Rotating Knives of the Grinder on the Yield Stress and Water-Binding Capacity of Fine Ground Chicken Bone

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(7), 3533; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073533
by Gulvira Bekeshova 1, Nadir Ibragimov 1, Aitbek Kakimov 1, Anuarbek Suychinov 2, Zhanibek Yessimbekov 2,*, Baktybala Kabdylzhar 2, Zhaiyk Tokhtarov 1, Gulmira Zhumadilova 1 and Galiya Abdilova 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(7), 3533; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073533
Submission received: 1 March 2022 / Revised: 25 March 2022 / Accepted: 28 March 2022 / Published: 30 March 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

The current manuscript was carefully reviewed. The title and the results are technologically interesting. As my point of view, the current manuscript is acceptable for publication after extensive editing of English language by a native editor.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. All changes and additions hihlighted in green

Reviewer 2 Report

THE MS NEEDS REVISIONS AS ILLUSTRATE IN THE ATTACHED FILE.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. All changes and additions hihlighted in green

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript, the effect of mechanical processing of poultry meat-bone residue on the yield stress and water-binding capacity of minced meat-bone residue when changing the rotation speed of rotary knives and the gap of the cutting mechanism of the grinder were discussed. The manuscript has certain practical reference value, but it needs to be greatly modified before publication.

  1. In this manuscript, the experimental design is not clearly described, and the number of repetitions and parallel samples are unclear, which needs to be further modified.
  2. Line 166: In Table 2, How to compare the test groups is not clearly explained.
  3. Line 173-17: In Figure 4 and Figure 5, the standard deviation of each data point is not marked in the figure.
  4. The discussion part in the manuscript is obviously missing. Please supplement it.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. All changes and additions hihglighted in green

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The publication is correct, also the results are clearly presented and properly commented. The manuscript can be published after major revision, according to the list below:

  • The author should emphasize the novelty of the method in the abstract and the last paragraph of the introduction.
  • In the introduction part paragraph about the possibility of using statistical methods on mechanical processing of meat and bone raw materials should be provided.
  • Please use superscripts throughout the text (for example: min-1)
  • Please replace "," by "." in table 1
  • If replications of the measures have been carried out, errors in the figures should be included.
  • The joining of the points in the figures must be removed unless it corresponds to a mathematical fit.
  • Taking into account the results obtained, the conclusions are very short.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. All changes and additions highlighted in green

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has revised all the questions raised, and I suggest accepting this manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Taking into account the answers to the reviewers questions and suggestions and the modifications made, I consider that the manuscript can be published in its current version.

Back to TopTop