Oat and Oat Processed Products—Technology, Composition, Nutritional Value, and Health

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract

In the abstract, limitations on consumption in oat product should be mentioned.

 

Introduction

The author should give more detail about the results and add the previous work for discussion about “Oat and Oat Processed Products - Technology, Composition, 2 Nutritional Value and Health”.

 

2.3 Oats in the treatment of diseases of affluence

As you mention in 2.3 “Diseases of affluence such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, cardio-vascular disease and cancer can be reduced by consuming an adequate dose of β-glucans in the daily diet [47,50,51].”

The author should provide examples of research papers and the supporting information along with explaining the health effects of oats.

 

2.8. Oats in food technology

In this title “Food technology” related to oat products but it only describes only cereals. The author should explain

“How food processing technology is changing oat products?”

“What kind of production technology is likely to be used in the future?”

 

Please check the spelling and format of the manuscripts again, especially the unit of parameter, name of tables and figures, font, and size of characters.

 

Please give the recommendations for further work.

Please check the spelling and format of the manuscripts again, especially the unit of parameter, name of tables and figures, font, and size of characters.

Author Response

We would like to thank the Reviewer for such a comprehensive review and for all the very valuable and important suggestions which allowed us to correct the manuscript and significantly improve its quality.

Below we present our replies to each of the comments:

Comment 1: In the abstract, limitations on consumption in oat product should be mentioned.

Authors’ response: The missing information on limitations on oat product consumption have now been introduced into the Introduction section, before the aim of the work (see lines 65-71 in the revised manuscript).

Comment 2: The author should give more detail about the results and add the previous work for discussion about “Oat and Oat Processed Products - Technology, Composition, 2 Nutritional Value and Health”.

Authors’ response: Following the Reviewer suggestion, the article has been enriched with more detailed information in the mentioned aspects and thoroughly edited (see yellow parts of the 2-5 chapters in the revised manuscript).

Comment 3: As you mention in 2.3 “Diseases of affluence such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, cardio-vascular disease and cancer can be reduced by consuming an adequate dose of β-glucans in the daily diet [47,50,51].”

The author should provide examples of research papers and the supporting information along with explaining the health effects of oats.

Authors’ response: Additional information explaining the health effects of oats has been introduced in the corresponding chapter, as suggested by the Reviewer (see lines 247, 258, 298, 299, 352-353 in the revised manuscript).

Comment 4: In this title “Food technology” related to oat products but it only describes only cereals. The author should explain.

“How food processing technology is changing oat products?”

“What kind of production technology is likely to be used in the future?”.

Authors’ response: As expected by the Reviewer, detailed additions were included in Table 3, newly added in the revised manuscript (see line 222 in the revised manuscript).

 Best regards on behalf of the authors, Renata Kazimierczak

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. It is necessary to follow the structure of the article recommended by the journal.

The structure can include an abstract, keywords, introduction, relevant sections, discussion, conclusions, and further directions, with a suggested minimum word count of 4,000.

2. It is necessary to review the cited bibliography according to the editorial guidelines of the journal.

3. include more updated bibliography (2022-2023)

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

See the attached manuscript for some recommendations.

Author Response

We would like to thank the Reviewer for such a comprehensive review and for all the very valuable and important suggestions which allowed us to correct the manuscript and significantly improve its quality.  

Below we present our replies to each of the comments:

Comment 1: It is necessary to follow the structure of the article recommended by the journal.

The structure can include an abstract, keywords, introduction, relevant sections, discussion, conclusions, and further directions, with a suggested minimum word count of 4,000.

Authors’ response: According to the Reviewer's suggestion, a structure appropriate to the requirements of the journal was used. Currently, the manuscript is >6000 words long. The recommended structure for review articles is different than for standard original research papers.  

Comment 2: It is necessary to review the cited bibliography according to the editorial guidelines of the journal.

Authors’ response: The bibliography list was formatted according to editorial requirements.

Comment 3: Include more updated bibliography (2022-2023).

Authors’ response: The article has been enriched with a new bibliography, according to the Reviewer's suggestion.

Comment 4: Comments included in the reviewed manuscript: “The present review aimed …”. The title is not representative of the text. 2.3 - very short paragraph, include in another section.

Authors’ response: The article has been thoroughly re-edited. Chapter titles and their content have been corrected in accordance with the Reviewer's comments (see lines 72, 75, 246 in the revised manuscript).

 Best regards on behalf of the authors, Renata Kazimierczak

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The submitted manuscript focused on oat processed products, composition, nutritional value and impact of oat to human health. The manuscript technically sounds well and shows good. Literature investigation is good in the paper. However, this manuscript was written more intensively on human health. Espeacially, a very short information about oats was given in the introduction part. There is no information about oats cultivated (white oat- Avena sativa L., red oat-Avena byzantina L.) in the world. The Latin name of the oat plant was not used in the paper. Althouht oats is also very important in the world as animal feed, there is no information also given in the introduction part. Therefore, based on my understanding and observation I am recommending a major revision which needs to be fixed point to pint. Some specific comments in the article are detailed in the system as comments. It will help to improve the manuscript overall.

 

Comments to Authors

Abstract part

Line 19., please use “It is” instead of its.

Line 21. Please delete “,” before the “but”.

Line24-26. Please reformulate this sentences. Also revised here…”create new ones”, and delete the “,” before the “but".

Line 29-31. please explain the aim of the study more clearly and indicate how it will contribute to future studies.

Introduction part

The introduction part must improve. Please give more information about oat; such as origin, types (white-red oats) and cultivation data in the word.

Line 35-38: Please reformulate this sentencens.

Line 40: To ensure coherence before this sentence, please specify categories. For example, “… divided into three different categories.

Line 40,41,44: Please use roman numerals for categories as (I), (II), (III). P

Line 43. Please add “and” , between the flour and groats.

Line 46. The aim of the study was not written well.  Here, authors provide an overview of oat, oat products in the food industry and their impact on health and progress in oat processing technology by highlighting the past and recent advances. Please revised the sentences, and add more information.

Result part

Line 50. Please explain the results separately under the 3 categories given above

Line 35. Please use the same word “Fiber or Fibre” in the whole paper.

Line 57. Please explain “% d. m.” and use the same word  in the whole paper. In the other section, authors used DM. Please reformulate it.

Line 59. Please revised as “.. to have a higher..”

Line 63. Please revised as “.. trigger..”

Line 96. Author cited only one literature here. Thus, please do not use “Literature data reported that”

Line 98. Please revised as “.. are characterised by a higher..”

Line 101. Please use the same word  “DM or d. m.” in the whole paper.

Line 108. Please delete the “as”

Line 122. Please revised as “the quick oats: 2.2-7.7% and instant oats”

Line 129. Author cited only one literature here. Thus, please do not use “Studies have shown that”.

Line 155. Please revised as “… compounds and also prevents..”

Line 163. Please revised as “in relation to a high intake of...”

Line 164. Please revised as “ ..in resulting ..”

Please combine the 2.3. and 2.4 sections. (Line 166-170)

Line 174. Please revised as “ In an the acidic envir..”

Line 180 Kindly adjust as hemoglobin.

Line 189. Author cited only one literature here. Thus, please do not use “Studies show that”.

Line 193. Kindly adjust as “levels”

Line 197. Please revised as “… acquired a 5.4..”

Line 255. Please revised this citation “Gibinski and Lee et al. add that..”

Line 262. Please do not use abbriviation for BMI.

Line 267-269. The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

Line 279. Author cited only one literature here. Thus, please do not use “Studies have shown that”.

Line 311. Kindly adjust as “is” instead of “are”.

Line 324. Please revised as “can be used”..

Line 342. Please revised as “..are used in ..”

Line 348. Please revised as “is” istead of “are”

 

Please write the conclusion part a little more emphatically, and provide how it will contribute to further studies.

Author Response

We would like to thank the Reviewer for such a comprehensive review and for all the very valuable and important suggestions which allowed us to correct errors and significantly improve the quality of the manuscript.

Below we present our replies to each of the comments:

Abstract part

Comment 1: Line 19., please use “It is” instead of its.

Authors’ response: This would change the meaning of the sentence, as we used ‘its’ not ‘it’s’, which are not the same words and meanings.

Comment 2-4:

Line 21. Please delete “,” before the “but”.

Line24-26. Please reformulate this sentences. Also revised here…”create new ones”, and delete the “,” before the “but".

Line 29-31. please explain the aim of the study more clearly and indicate how it will contribute to future studies.

Authors’ response: Sentences were corrected and reformulated according to Reviewer’s suggestions (see lines 23, 24-27, 30-31 of the revised manuscript).

Introduction part

Comment 5: The introduction part must improve. Please give more information about oat; such as origin, types (white-red oats) and cultivation data in the word.

Authors’ response: The introduction has been revised and enriched with information about oats as suggested by the Reviewer (see lines 39-56, yellow section of the revised manuscript).

Comment 6: Line 35-38: Please reformulate this sentences.

Authors’ response: Sentence was reformulated in the revised manuscript (see lines 35-38, yellow section of the revised manuscript).

Comment 7-9:

Line 40: To ensure coherence before this sentence, please specify categories. For example, “… divided into three different categories.

Line 40,41,44: Please use roman numerals for categories as (I), (II), (III). P

Line 43. Please add “and” , between the flour and groats.

Authors’ response: Proposed corrections were applied in the revised manuscript (see lines 58-62 of the revised manuscript).

Comment 10: Line 35. Please use the same word “Fiber or Fibre” in the whole paper.

Authors’ response: We have unified the nomenclature to “fiber”. American spelling of “fiber” is now used throughout the manuscript.

Comment 11-13:

Line 57. Please explain “% d. m.” and use the same word  in the whole paper. In the other section, authors used DM. Please reformulate it.

Line 59. Please revised as “.. to have a higher..”

Line 63. Please revised as “.. trigger..”

Authors’ response: Proposed corrections were applied in the revised manuscript (see lines 83, 85, 91 of the revised manuscript).

Comment 14-15:

Line 96. Author cited only one literature here. Thus, please do not use “Literature data reported that”

Line 98. Please revised as “.. are characterised by a higher..”

Authors’ response: These points were corrected according to the Reviewer's suggestions (see lines 122, 124 of the revised manuscript).

Comment 16:

Line 101. Please use the same word  “DM or d. m.” in the whole paper.

Authors’ response: We have unified the nomenclature - now “d. m.” is used throughout the manuscript.

Comment 17-23:

Line 108. Please delete the “as”

Line 122. Please revised as “the quick oats: 2.2-7.7% and instant oats”

Line 129. Author cited only one literature here. Thus, please do not use “Studies have shown that”.

Line 155. Please revised as “… compounds and also prevents..”

Line 163. Please revised as “in relation to a high intake of...”

Line 164. Please revised as “ ..in resulting ..”

Line 180 Kindly adjust as hemoglobin.

Authors’ response: In accordance with the Reviewer's suggestions, we have made all the above indicated corrections in the revised manuscript (see lines 134, 148, 155, 235, 242, 269 of the revised manuscript).

Comment 24: Line 189. Author cited only one literature here. Thus, please do not use “Studies show that”.

Authors’ response: Corrected in this part and every other part where only one study was cited (see line 277 of the revised manuscript).

Comment 25-27:

Line 193. Kindly adjust as “levels”

Line 197. Please revised as “… acquired a 5.4..”

Line 255. Please revised this citation “Gibinski and Lee et al. add that..”

Authors’ response: In accordance with the Reviewer's suggestions, we have made all the above indicated corrections in the revised manuscript (see lines 280, 285, 344 of the revised manuscript).

Comment 28: Line 262. Please do not use abbriviation for BMI.

Authors’ response: Abbreviation was deleted as suggested by the Reviewer (see line 351 of the revised manuscript).

Comment 29: Line 267-269. The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

Authors’ response: Sentence was rewritten (see lines 355-358 of the revised manuscript)

Comment 30-33:

Line 311. Kindly adjust as “is” instead of “are”.

Line 324. Please revised as “can be used”..

Line 342. Please revised as “..are used in ..”

Line 348. Please revised as “is” istead of “are”

Authors’ response: In accordance with the Reviewer's suggestions, we have made all the above indicated corrections in the revised manuscript (see lines 168, 177, 196, 202 of the revised manuscript).

Comment 34: Please write the conclusion part a little more emphatically, and provide how it will contribute to further studies.

Authors’ response: We have expanded the conclusions section as suggested (see lines 413-423, yellow section of the revised manuscript).

 Kind regards on behalf of the authors, Renata Kazimierczak

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I appreciate the efforts of the authors, because preparing a valuable (Systematic) Review is much more difficult than composing a Original Research Manuscript. Unfortunately, the submitted manuscript has several shortcomings.

The titles of the chapters do not correspond to the content: "Technological characterization of oat grain..." - the authors are devoted to the description of triggered inflammation, anti-cancer and antioxidant properties, atherogenicity and thrombogenicity; "... cardiovascular disease" - the authors describe glucose metabolism/T2DM; "... overweight and obesity" - the authors describe inflammatory bowel disease.

The authors devoted space to describing known information about the chemical composition (proteins, fats, polysaccharides/fibre, glucans... vitamins and minerals) of parts of oat grains. It is a pity that they did not focus more on bioactive substances -  potential readers would certainly appreciate detailed information about the mechanism by which they participate in the prevention, or alleviation of disease symptoms (CVD, T2DM, obesity...). For example the information "Furthermore, β-glucans can prevent cancers of the stomach, lung, larynx, pharynx, oesophagus, breast, ovaries, uterus and prostate [30,31,62–65,74]." is too brief and has little explanatory value.

"Diseases of affluence such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, cardiovascular disease..." - Hight blood pressure is not heart disease on its own. Hypertension is one cause of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular diseases are a group of disorders of the the heart. 

It is important to take into account the choice of words when interpreting the results - preventive or protective effect against cancer vs. cancer treatment/elimination of malignant cells.  Also, whether the results were observed in in vitro studies (cancer cells; Caco-2/TC-7 enterocytes; intestinal bacteria; rats...) or in the case of patients suffering from a particular disease.

References - only less than a quarter of them were published in the last 5 years (2018 - 2023) and also a larger number of review articles were used.

Author Response

 

We would like to thank the Reviewer for such a comprehensive review and for all the very valuable and important suggestions which allowed us to correct errors and significantly improve the quality of the manuscript.

Below we present our replies to each of the comments:

Comment 1: The titles of the chapters do not correspond to the content: "Technological characterization of oat grain..." - the authors are devoted to the description of triggered inflammation, anti-cancer and antioxidant properties, atherogenicity and thrombogenicity; "... cardiovascular disease" - the authors describe glucose metabolism/T2DM; "... overweight and obesity" - the authors describe inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors’ response: The titles of the chapters were changed and the information was systematized in accordance with the Reviewer's suggestion (see lines 75, 259, 372 of the revised manuscript).

Comment 1: The authors devoted space to describing known information about the chemical composition (proteins, fats, polysaccharides/fibre, glucans... vitamins and minerals) of parts of oat grains. It is a pity that they did not focus more on bioactive substances -  potential readers would certainly appreciate detailed information about the mechanism by which they participate in the prevention, or alleviation of disease symptoms (CVD, T2DM, obesity...). For example the information "Furthermore, β-glucans can prevent cancers of the stomach, lung, larynx, pharynx, oesophagus, breast, ovaries, uterus and prostate [30,31,62–65,74]." is too brief and has little explanatory value.

Authors’ response: The influence of biologically active compounds of oat grain is a very broad and interesting issue and the Reviewer's comment is absolutely right. We tried to get into some of the mechanisms, but also list major important conditions and diseases which can be prevented by these compounds (see lines 316-347 of the revised manuscript).

Comment 2: "Diseases of affluence such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, cardiovascular disease..." - Hight blood pressure is not heart disease on its own. Hypertension is one cause of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular diseases are a group of disorders of the heart. 

Authors’ response: We totally agree with the Reviewer. According to the Reviewer's suggestion, the sentence was revised and a correction was also made in the rest of the manuscript.

Comment 3: It is important to take into account the choice of words when interpreting the results - preventive or protective effect against cancer vs. cancer treatment/elimination of malignant cells.  Also, whether the results were observed in in vitro studies (cancer cells; Caco-2/TC-7 enterocytes; intestinal bacteria; rats...) or in the case of patients suffering from a particular disease.

Authors’ response: The additional information has been provided as suggested by the Reviewer to avoid the risk of misinterpretation of the data. When describing the research results in the manuscript, we specified the type of experiments, providing information, e.g. whether it was in vitro or in vivo study; whether there was a treatment of disease or preventive effect.

Comment 4: References - only less than a quarter of them were published in the last 5 years (2018 - 2023) and also a larger number of review articles were used.

Authors’ response: According to the Reviewer suggestion many new references have been introduced, representing the most recent literature on a given topic.

Kind regards on behalf of the authors, Renata Kazimierczak

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The authors implemented all necessary corrections. I believe that the article is suitable for publication. Thank you.