Next Article in Journal
Novel, Functional Fermented Dairy Product: Preparation and Evaluation of Dried Kishk-like Products from Fenugreek Seeds with Cow’s Milk, Camel’s Milk, and Goat’s Milk
Previous Article in Journal
Saccharification of Agricultural Wastes and Clarification of Orange Juice by Penicillium rolfsii CCMB 714 Pectinase
Previous Article in Special Issue
Winemaking: “With One Stone, Two Birds”? A Holistic Review of the Bio-Functional Compounds, Applications and Health Benefits of Wine and Wineries’ By-Products
Peer-Review Record

Impacts of Fermentation on the Phenolic Composition, Antioxidant Potential, and Volatile Compounds Profile of Commercially Roasted Coffee Beans

Fermentation 2023, 9(10), 918;
by Yuanyuan Tan 1, Hanjing Wu 1, Linghong Shi 1, Colin Barrow 2, Frank R. Dunshea 1,3 and Hafiz A. R. Suleria 1,2,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Fermentation 2023, 9(10), 918;
Submission received: 29 September 2023 / Revised: 17 October 2023 / Accepted: 18 October 2023 / Published: 19 October 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors describe interesting research regarding the comparison of non-fermented and fermented coffees.

The following revisions are necessary:

-        The journal template should be re-checked. Review is difficult without page or line numbers

-        Throughout: the English should be checked by a native speaker

-        Throughout including abstract: the authors have errors in use of botanical nomenclature. Arabica and Robusta are species. Bourbon and gesha are varieties of Arabica#

-        Throughout: please correct the use of botanical binary nomenclature. The first word must be upper case, the second word lower case, and both word in italics, e.g. Coffea arabica.

-        Coffea robusta is also not correct. The correct species is Coffea canephora. In which robusta may be a variety, but most commercial material colloquially termed as robusta is not the variety robusta.

-        Section 2.2.: how were the species and variety of the samples verified? There is much fraud on the commercial market. How was the processing of the beans verified?

-        Results section, tables and throughout: Please only state significant decimals, specifically in the text, considering the measurement uncertainty. E.g. it makes not sense to state 2 decimals, if the measurement uncertainty is over 1.0.

-        Throughout: I believe the wrong format for intext references is used. These should be numbered, e.g. [1,2].

-        Section 3.1, last paragraph: add space in “roastingcould”

-        Table 1: bound not bond?

-        Section 3.3.: examinate sound strange

-        Figure 1: this figure is more or less meaningless. The compounds should at least be assigned in the legend

-        Section and throughout: check all chemical names for IUPAC nomenclature, starting that the first letter should be lower case in English, e.g. p-coumaroyl etc.

-        Section present instead of presented

-        Section, last paragraph: stilbenes instead of stibines

-        Section 3.5: check font size at the end; add space before specifically; add space before “.Thus”

-        Funding: the funding section is nongrammatical and unclear. “Council. Award?”

English is mostly OK, but non-grammatical on some instances

Author Response

Sincerely appreciated your time and support for reviewing and recommend our manuscript. We have revised the whole text according to your comments. Please see attached document for more details. Thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is very interesting , combines the scientific and application aspects

The impact of fermentation on the quality of coffee is quite obvious, but such a thorough qualitative and quantitative analysis of polyphenolic compounds allows for more in-depth conclusions.

Grammatical errors in the text need to be corrected

The lack of a line of manuscript text makes it difficult to review and to indicate some corrections


A few remarks

Table 1:

Aren't the values compared in rows? The explanations below the table are inadequate, there are no a-k symbols, in the table there are only a,b,c and d.

Fermentation is a key procedure determining the changes analysed in this paper. There is no information on how the fermentation was carried out: conditions, time, microorganisms responsible for the process.

Table 3: Not explained symbols * and ** as well as others like G or B with numbers – not clear

Grammatical errors in the text need to be corrected

The lack of a line of manuscript text makes it difficult to review and to indicate some corrections

Author Response

Sincerely appreciate your time and effort to review and provide valuable comments to our manuscript. We have revised whole text according to your comments. Please see attached document for more details! Sincerely appreciated!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop