Influences of Postharvest Storage and Processing Techniques on Antioxidant and Nutraceutical Properties of Rubus idaeus L.: A Mini-Review
, Lucia Guidi 1,3,*, Rossano Massai 1,3 and Damiano Remorini 1,3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “Influences of post-harvest storage and processing techniques on antioxidant and nutraceutical properties of raspberries (Rubus idaeus L.): A Mini-Review” aimed at describing the potential health benefits of raspberry consumption, and presenting the effects of post-harvest storage and processing techniques on raspberries quality and phytochemical content. I found the manuscript to be well-organized, well-written, and to cover the aims of the review. Nevertheless, the authors must take into account and address the following comments before I can suggest the final acceptance of the manuscript.
- The abstract in its current form does not present any of the findings that were shown in the manuscript. It must be rewritten and the main findings of this review must be included.
- To be honest I found section 2 not necessary for this manuscript. This article is a mini review and even though this part of the manuscript is well-written, it presents information that is already known to the majority of the scientific community. I would suggest the incorporation of a new Table here where the authors could summarize the most important part of all that is written in section 2.
- What I really miss in this review is a critical discussion of the literature referred to in the ms. All sections were limited to a simple description of previous reports, with few or absent discussion. At the end of the ms a small discussion along with Future perspectives must be added
Author Response
Reviewer #1:
The manuscript “Influences of post-harvest storage and processing techniques on antioxidant and nutraceutical properties of raspberries (Rubus idaeus L.): A Mini-Review” aimed at describing the potential health benefits of raspberry consumption, and presenting the effects of post-harvest storage and processing techniques on raspberries quality and phytochemical content. I found the manuscript to be well-organized, well-written, and to cover the aims of the review.
Author answer: We are grateful for your constructive comments and the positive remarks on our manuscript.
The abstract in its current form does not present any of the findings that were shown in the manuscript. It must be rewritten and the main findings of this review must be included.
Author answer: Thank you for the suggestion; consequently, the abstract section was rewritten pointing out the main findings of the review.
To be honest I found section 2 not necessary for this manuscript. This article is a mini review and even though this part of the manuscript is well-written, it presents information that is already known to the majority of the scientific community. I would suggest the incorporation of a new Table here where the authors could summarize the most important part of all that is written in section 2.
Author answer: We are particularly grateful for the suggestion to summarize the section 2. The section was summarised in the Figure 1.
What I really miss in this review is a critical discussion of the literature referred to in the ms. All sections were limited to a simple description of previous reports, with few or absent discussion. At the end of the ms a small discussion along with Future perspectives must be added
Author answer: Thank you for your suggestion, the discussion and conclusion sections were improved.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editors,
Thank you so much for much for choosing me as a reviewer of the manuscript ID: horticulturae-1006507 entitled “Influences of Post-Harvest Storage and Processing Techniques on Antioxidant and Nutraceutical Properties of Raspberries (Rubus idaeus L.): A Mini-Review”.I hope that my comments will help Authors to improve their manuscript.
Detailed remarks concerning manuscript horticulturae-1006507,
Some of the cited literature are review papers. Please do not write the review paper based on the review papers.
Title: Title of the manuscript should be concise and informative so it should be changed. There is no need to give in the title of the manuscript the both English and Latin names of the species. The Latin names in the title of the manuscript are preferred.
Keywords: It is not recommended to give as the key words the same words or phrases which were used in the title of the manuscript. Please do needed changes.
Abstract.
The aim of the report should be improved. The specific purpose of the work corresponding to the topic of the work should be précised. The phrase "describe the potential health " used in the aim of the report should be précised.
The methodology information should be mentioned in the title of the manuscript.
Introduction
P.1. l30-43/p2. L. 43-74
Please insert the appropriate subsections within the section Introduction
The background concerning the topic of the manuscript in connection with Rubus idaeus L. should be enhanced.
Introduction
P.1. l30-43/p2. L. 43-74
Arrange the information referring to the topic of the work (currently there is "information mix".
The purpose of the report should be justified.
Instead of "phytochemicals" I suggest to use phrase “biologically active chemical compounds”
METHODOLOGY INFORMATION SHOULD BE GIVEN. The searched databases together with key words and period of years should be mentioned
Figurę 1.
p.3. l. 91-92 Make a correction in the figure description. (do not repeat (g 100 g-1)
"Values were obtained from ‘Phenol Explorer Database’ and literature [2,30]"- please make correction in the citation.
Figure 2. P.9. l. 318-320 The description of the figure should be corrected and the citation should be given.
TABLES
Table 1. /Table 2 P.5. l. 199-202/P.7.l. 266-269
The captions of the tables should be corrected. It is hard to understand it. „…..(raspberry fresh fruit) in red raspberry fruit….”???
P.9.l. 335-342
Table 3.
A correction in the table description and authors citations is needed
P.9. l. 343 – 358
Conclusions
The conclusions did not correspond with the topic of the manuscript.
„Influences of Post-Harvest Storage and Processing 2 Techniques on Antioxidant and Nutraceutical 3 Properties of Raspberries (Rubus idaeus L.)…”
The reader expects the information concerning this issue.
References
Reference list should be prepared strictly according to the guides for authors. There are many editorial mistakes in the reference list. For example why once each word of the manuscript is written with capital letter but the other time are not. Please go through the whole reference list and do needed changes.
Check the authors' citations
Make a correction, e.g. P.10. l. 373-374 P.11. l. 420-421, 437-439 P. 12. l. 440-442, 446-447. There is only some examples but the whole reference list needs checkin.
“Ascorbic acid content decreased in both treatments; however, heat pump-drying treatment slightly retained more ascorbic acid than hot air treatment (60 and 50 %, respectively)” - slightly retained more ascorbic acid???
Author Response
Reviewer #2:
Some of the cited literature are review papers. Please do not write the review paper based on the review papers.
Author answer: Thank you for the suggestion. Some review papers were discarded. In the discussion, review papers were sometimes used to describe a general pattern of bioactive chemical compounds (based on other food matrixes) under treatments (e.g., freeze-drying n° 61, 62, 65). On the contrary, research articles on raspberry were used to show specific variations in bioactive chemical compounds of raspberry fruit during a processing technique.
Reviews also were used to describe the functioning of a particular treatment (Juicing, Microwave or Heat Pump n° 24, 71 and 72).
Title: Title of the manuscript should be concise and informative so it should be changed. There is no need to give in the title of the manuscript the both English and Latin names of the species. The Latin names in the title of the manuscript are preferred.
Author answer: The English name in the title was deleted.
Keywords: It is not recommended to give as the key words the same words or phrases which were used in the title of the manuscript. Please do needed changes.
Author answer: Thank you for your suggestion, keywords were changed
The aim of the report should be improved. The specific purpose of the work corresponding to the topic of the work should be précised. The phrase "describe the potential health " used in the aim of the report should be précised.
The methodology information should be mentioned in the title of the manuscript.
Author answer: Abstract was rewritten. We believe that the manuscript title it describes sufficiently the methodology reported in the body of the ms.
Introduction
P.1. l30-43/p2. L. 43-74
Please insert the appropriate subsections within the section Introduction
The background concerning the topic of the manuscript in connection with Rubus idaeus L. should be enhanced.
P.1. l30-43/p2. L. 43-74
Arrange the information referring to the topic of the work (currently there is "information mix".
The purpose of the report should be justified.
Instead of "phytochemicals" I suggest to use phrase “biologically active chemical compounds”
Author answer: Thank you for your suggestion, the introduction section was enhanced. The word ‘phytochemicals’ was changed with ‘bioactive chemical compounds’
METHODOLOGY INFORMATION SHOULD BE GIVEN. The searched databases together with key words and period of years should be mentioned
Author answer: Section 2 was eleiminated as suggested by referee # 1 and now only the figure is shown with the reference in the legend.
Figurę 1.
p.3. l. 91-92 Make a correction in the figure description. (do not repeat (g 100 g-1)
Author answer: Nutritional values were expressed as g 100 g-1, while bioactive chemical compounds as mg 100 g-1.
Values were obtained from ‘Phenol Explorer Database’ and literature [2,30]"- please make correction in the citation.
Author answer: Done
Figure 2. P.9. l. 318-320 The description of the figure should be corrected and the citation should be given.
Author answer: There is no citation because the photo is the result of the experiment (fresh fruit vs heat pump treatment vs hot air treatment) conducted in our lab to underline the effect of HP treatment (subsection 3.5).
TABLES
Table 1. /Table 2 P.5. l. 199-202/P.7.l. 266-269
The captions of the tables should be corrected. It is hard to understand it. „…..(raspberry fresh fruit) in red raspberry fruit….”???
P.9.l. 335-342
Table 3.
A correction in the table description and authors citations is needed
P.9. l. 343 – 358
Author answer: Thank you for your suggestion, the capitations were corrected.
Table 3 There is no citation because the data were obtained at the of the experiment (fresh fruit vs heat pump treatment vs hot air treatment) conducted in our lab (subsection 3.5).
Conclusions
The conclusions did not correspond with the topic of the manuscript.
„Influences of Post-Harvest Storage and Processing 2 Techniques on Antioxidant and Nutraceutical 3 Properties of Raspberries (Rubus idaeus L.)…”
The reader expects the information concerning this issue.
Author answer: Conclusion section was reinforced.
References
Reference list should be prepared strictly according to the guides for authors. There are many editorial mistakes in the reference list. For example why once each word of the manuscript is written with capital letter but the other time are not. Please go through the whole reference list and do needed changes.
Check the authors' citations
Make a correction, e.g. P.10. l. 373-374 P.11. l. 420-421, 437-439 P. 12. l. 440-442, 446-447. There is only some examples but the whole reference list needs checkin.
Author answer: References were corrected.
Ascorbic acid content decreased in both treatments; however, heat pump-drying treatment slightly retained more ascorbic acid than hot air treatment (60 and 50 %, respectively)” - slightly retained more ascorbic acid???
Author answer: The statement was reviewed.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editors,
Once again thank you so much for choosing me as a reviewer of the manuscript entitled "Influences of Post-Harvest Storage and Processing Techniques on Antioxidant and Nutraceutical Properties of Raspberries (Rubus idaeus L.): A Mini-Review."
I have found that Authors included my comments and now the manuscript may be published.
Author Response
Dear referee we thanks for your suggestions and we accepeted all the comments.
