Comprehensive Evaluation of Paddy Quality by Different Drying Methods, Based on Gray Relational Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
No comments.
Author Response
I had improved the English grammar in the article.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
My comments are after the authours' response.
Responds to the reviewer 2’s comments：
Comment 1：The measured moisture content parts because everybody who read this paper should know the moisture change trend during the drying process when different methods are used.
Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. The determination of moisture content was a part of the experiment, and the quality detection could only be carried out when the safe moisture content is reached. The article added the precipitation rate of each drying method.
Response: The authors did not get it. They should summary the procedure of the moisture measurement and provide the result.
Comment 2：This manuscript is not well written because 1) results are mixed with methodology; 2) lots of English grammar problem; and 3) did not follow scientific standard.
Response: Aiming at the problem of manuscript writing, the typesetting had been conducted again, and the grammar had been modified. The article no longer used the subjective AHP method, but used the objective grey relational analysis method. The farmers believed that the quality of late harvest paddy is the best, and it was more convenient and economical, but this was not the case in the experiment. Therefore, through this manuscript, the farmers had a certain improvement on the traditional operation mode.
Response: need more improvement.
Comment 3：L 22. I do not believe your equipment have the accuracy with 3 digital of moisture content (because no equipment can do now).
Response: The measurement result of moisture content was the average value of three measurements, so 3 decimal places were taken. I had modified the data to 2 decimal places.
Response: You should only provide one digital because this is the precision of your method and equipment.
Comment 4：You mentioned the safe storage moisture content in many places. Please specify the safe moisture content at least at the beginning of the manuscript.
Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. The reference of safe moisture standard was added in the manuscript.
Response: Not reference. Please provide the exact value.
Comment 5：Please change Standing-pole drying to late harvest because: 1) this is the first time I see this term; and 2) it is harvested after the grain reach its safe moisture content , and this is the normal method for late harvesting and no need to invent a new term which nobody knows it. Response: we changed standing-pole drying to late harvest.
Comment 6：L77-78. You need to specify the measured parameters for each equipment.
Response: Thank you very much. I have added the manufacturer of each device and related parameters.
Comment 7：Delete Fig. 2 because the text already describes the procedure clearly. Table 1. Delete Drying start time and drying end time. Only provide drying time. Fig. 3 Change to the drying time (not the time). Please provide standard error or deviation for all the data presented in the figures.
Response: I deleted Figure 2 and added drying time to Table 1. Figure 3 changed to the drying time. The standard error was filled in each figure.
Comment 7：Line 176 to 211. Late harvesting might result in seed losing. Did you consider this factor?
Response: We took into account the problem that late harvest will lead to the loss of dry matter of paddy, so we mentioned at the end of the manuscript that late harvest will lead to the loss of 3.5346% of paddy. It was suggested that farmers should not adopt the late harvest method.
Response: only provide 3.5% because you must use a reasonable decimal number.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The authors addressed my concerns.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of The paper entitled
«Comprehensive evaluation of paddy quality by different drying methods based on analytic hierarchy process»
by
Na Zhang, Wenfu Wu, Shuyao Li, Yujia Wang, Yunzaho Ma, Xianmei Meng, Yaqiu Zhang
The paper investigates the effects of the sun drying, mechanical drying and standing-pole on the quality of paddy under different moisture contents. The quality of the paddy is determined in terms of the burst rate, taste rate, appearance quality and pasting characteristics. Several experimental measurements have been carried out in realistic conditions similar to those performed by farmers during the late harvesting periods of September and October. The main outcome is that in order to reduce the loss of harvested paddy and ensures a better quality, the best drying method must be mechanical for an initial moisture content of 22.409 %. On the other hand, the sun drying and standing-pole drying methods were influenced by the environmental and weather changes and thus the data may not be reproducible. Unfortunately, the author did not provide any solar irradiance or wind speed data. For each drying technique, three batches of Japonica paddy were used each with a different initial moisture content. The quality indexes were used to construct an index system and the AHP weighting method was used to calculate the comprehensive evaluation score. The authors have proposed to establish a correlation between the physico-chemical characteristics of the rice and its eating and commercial qualities and have, for such a purpose, applied the AHP method. Their suggested comprehensive evaluation score was equal to 0.919.
The AHP is well known to be defective on many levels and the rank created by this system depends on an individual's own judgment. Therefore, the AHP is not a legitimate technique, as the last result is specifically relative to the scale utilized. Indeed, their main results depend on the scale arbitrarily chosen and thus lacks any scientific justification. If another scale is used or another choice is adopted for assigning the weight in the judgment matrix, a different result will be obtained. The author did not give any explanation regarding the values assigned in the judgment matrices (tables 5, 6 and 7) used in their calculations. Did they estimate the values of the elements subjectively? arbitrarily without any scientific or mathematical estimation?, or there is a more rigorous scientific way behind the suggested values? The yield is simply dictated by the scale they utilize, if one uses an alternate scale then the last result may be liable to change.
Other remarks regarding the paper
1. There is a problem with the value of the moisture content mentioned in the text. For instance, for the first batch; the moisture content (sun drying) is: 32,588%, and in table 1 it is 32.709%. It is also different from that used in the mechanical drying and standing pole drying methods, at the initial state
2. The drying rate for the the three different drying methods regarding the moisture content vs time is not shown as it is very important to asses the effectiveness of the drying process
3. Some references in the reference list and in the text are not correctly written. For instance in Reference 1 the last author Rao is missing. In the text, when a reference is a contribution of several authors is cited, the authors should add «et al» .
4. In Eq 1, the subscript i must be changed to j in the Pi multiplication symbol.
5. Line 372, "mi" should be replaced by" wi" and RI in Eq .7 is not defined
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript has a low contribution to the scientific community because it repeated lots of published data. However, if the authors cut some parts (for example, the measured moisture content parts because everybody who read this paper should know the moisture change trend during the drying process when different methods are used) and focus on the comprehensive evaluation, it might be publishable.
This manuscript is not well written because 1) results are mixed with methodology; 2) lots of English grammar problem; and 3) did not follow scientific standard.
Example for the first point: Method in section 4 should be put in materials and methods. Results in section 4 should be put in result.
Example for the second point: L13 It should be ‘moisture contents’ after different. L15. When ‘respectively’ used, you should provide the corresponding terms. I did not see. L17. The same issue as L15. These mistakes are found in the first 4 statements in the abstract. Almost this paper needs to be re-wrote because English grammar and incorrect statements.
Example for the third point: L 22. I do not believe your equipment have the accuracy with 3 digital of moisture content (because no equipment can do now). You mentioned the safe storage moisture content in many places. Please specify the safe moisture content at least at the beginning of the manuscript. Please change Standing-pole drying to late harvest because: 1) this is the first time I see this term; and 2) it is harvested after the grain reach its safe moisture content, and this is the normal method for late harvesting and no need to invent a new term which nobody knows it. L77-78. You need to specify the measured parameters for each equipment. Delete Fig. 2 because the text already describes the procedure clearly. Table 1. Delete Drying start time and drying end time. Only provide drying time. Fig. 3 Change to the drying time (not the time). Please provide standard error or deviation for all the data presented in the figures. Line 176 to 211. Late harvesting might result in seed losing. Did you consider this factor?
Reviewer 3 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript titled: Comprehensive evaluation of paddy quality by different drying methods based on analytic hierarchy process.
This article aims to evaluate the optimal paddy drying methods including sun drying, mechanical drying and standing-pole drying with three different misture contents (32.6%, 24.4%, and 18.7%). The effects of different drying methods on the quality of paddy were evaluated including burst rate, taste value, appearance quality and pasting characteristics. And the tested paddy quality indexes were constructed to an index system and the analytic hierarchy process weighting method was also used to measure the comprehesive evaluation score. This study found the quality of paddy was best after harvesting when the moisture content of paddy was 24.4 and the mechanical drying is the optimal method for drying and get the highest comprehensive evaluation score. I think the manuscript is acceptable after minor revision. The article is innovative and it contains original and interesting information for rice grain drying data for farmers. Abstract is well written upon and moisture content, which can influence the qualities of the dried paddy quality are mentioned and the drying methods between sun drying and mechanical drying are observed and compared to standing-pole drying. Introduction is well addressed including post-harvest loss of paddy without timely drying. The importance to preserve the paddy rice and to keep the quality and safety of the paddy was introduced. The advantage of analytic hierarchy process information of weighting method to calculate the comprehensive evaluation score and even disadvantage for different processing methods were mentioned. Nevertheless, five cited paper at page 2 was not appropriately.
Materials and methods were well described. However, different meters, tester and analyzer should give more detail information including company name, city and country. Figures 3 to 5 of Results could be merge to Figure 3 (A-G). It would be better if the authors could give standard deviation of each data of 3 replications and indicate the significant of difference by letter between tested groups on Tables 2-3 and standard deviation bar on Figure 7(b).
This article would be accepted if the authors revise the Journal name abbreviation and title of papers in reference section. It will be helpful for other researchers to follow this study in the future.
I am not a native English speaker. The manuscript seems have no major mistakes are detected and the manuscript can be easily understood except some marked texts as attached file. The results are well discussed.
I enjoyed reading this manuscript; the needs of special groups of rice grain processing for small farmer. This manuscript presents some interesting data.
Date of this review
30 August 2022 12:10 am
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
