Selection of the Processing Method for Green Banana Chips from Barraganete and Dominico Varieties Using Multivariate Techniques
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript submitted by Liliana M. Chamorro-Hernandez1 et al. describes the proper processing methods for producing banana chips. But this manuscript still needs a minor revision before being accepted. The authors should reply the questions as follow properly.
1. Results part. For the different processing methods results, author should provide pictures of banana chips after different processing methods for comparison. Sensory evaluation is also an important issue except for the comparison between different components.
2. Figure 1 (b). The “humidity average” vertical coordinate should be consistent with previous article.
3. Is it any different in sodium content for these two varieties raw material. Author should provide data about it. And discuss reason for the changes.
Above all, the authors should make a proper revision for this version before accepted.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors aim to determine the suitable processing method – baking or frying, for producing healthy green banana chips using two banana varieties - Barraganete and Dominico. The study applied multivariate techniques and post-hoc tests which allowed considering the simultaneous effect of multiple dependent variables.
I have the following recommendations and remarks to the authors:
1. In the Introduction, lines 98-159, the phrase "In the study [...]" is often repeated, with individual studies presented as separate paragraphs. This makes the exposition slightly choppy and difficult to read (especially line 98). You can use different phrases, quote the authors of the studies, etc. to diversify the presentation.
2. The text between lines 113-119 is unclear - one study is commented on, but two literary sources are cited.
3. In two places in the manuscript, there is text in Spanish that should be removed (lines 140-141, 449).
4. A major shortcoming of the manuscript is the insufficient information in section 2.2 on sample preparation and determination of Starch, Moisture, Fat, Fiber, Ash, Protein, and Sodium. Abbreviations of various procedures are presented, but they are not described and no literature sources are cited. It is also not explained how the raw material samples were prepared.
5. It is not clear how many analyses were performed to determine the percentage of Starch, Moisture, Fat, Fiber, Ash, etc. The collected data can be performed in Supplementary materials.
6. References are not described as required and should be corrected.
7. The presented link “https://github.com/erickherreraresearch/MonocularPureVisualSLAMComparison“ is not active
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of the English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled "Selection of the Processing Method for Green Banana Chips from Barraganete and Dominico Varieties Using Multivariate Techniques" by Chamorro-Hernandez is a beautiful applied science work on using traditional statistical analysis with a beautiful representation of data on figures and tables. However, there are a few major methodological and representation concerns that need to be revised for consideration:
1. The language is often so difficult to understand that it creates overall difficulties in reading and interpreting the manuscript. It even looks like a translated manuscript into English. The authors are kindly suggested to form concise and short sentences with scientific words in the manuscript. I would suggest a thorough language revision.
2. The basic construction of a scientific manuscript is missing in this paper. The way the introduction is written looks like a compilation of summaries from different papers. "1.1 Related works" does not make any sense to me. This is not a thesis. A scientific research manuscript normally does not contain a literature review like that. Please completely delete it; if any information is necessary, it might be added to the introduction or discussion sections.
3. Recent last 2 years' citations are majorly missing in the manuscript too. The authors are please advised to add a few more papers on the related field from 2023 and 2022.
4. The font sizes in Figure 4 must be increased; otherwise, they are not understandable at all.
5. The last 3 paragraphs of the Discussion section (almost a write-up of more than one page) are totally devoid of any citations. Please check it. This is not okay. All the supporting discussions need to be cited properly unless it is authrs´own opinions.
6. The section Conclusion is not written in a way that traditionally and scientifically a Conclusion should be written. Separate 5 paragraphs inside a conclusion, and then the last paragraph starts with "In conclusion", is not okay at all. Please revise it. Keep it concise, conclusive, and short, in a single paragraph the way normally it is written.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAs mentioned, the language is often so difficult to understand that it creates overall difficulties in reading and interpreting the manuscript. It even looks like a translated manuscript into English. The authors are kindly suggested to form concise and short sentences with scientific words in the manuscript. I would suggest a thorough language revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been greatly improved.
There are some technical errors and inaccuracies that need to be corrected.
“Tabla” should be changed to “Table” in the Discussions section. Its number should also be changed to 7. A correction is also needed on line 493, respectively.
The word Fiber is not changed in some places – line 167, Table 1, Table 5.
The References part is not described as required by the journal and should be corrected.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of the English language is required.
