Consumer Acceptance of Fungus-Resistant Grape Varieties—An Exploratory Study Using Sensory Evaluation Tests among Consumers in Germany
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
My opinion of the document is magnificent: I found it original, with very interesting contributions to the scientific heritage, clearly stated, and for this reason I recommend its publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The abstract should be rewritten according to journal needs.
Line 143: The references were not numbered.
In the manuscript, the term g/l should also be written as g/L and mL.
The resolution of the Table.1 could have been better. It can not be read.
The keyword PIWI is not suitable as a keyword. It needs to be clarified.
There were not any details of the 48 consumers. They were selected randomly or not.
A figure can be formed for the test procedure.
A graphical abstract can be made.
Could you let me know why you selected 48 consumers? Do you know if it can be selected more?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In their Manuscript «sustainability-2437311» entitled " Consumer Acceptance of Fungus-Resistant Grape Varieties – 2 An Exploratory Study Using Sensory Evaluation Test Among 3 Consumers in Germany" for Sustainability (journal), authors have reported somewhat original data and I think that the study could be very interesting.
However, some minor points of criticism and questions must be clarified prior publication:
MINOR REVISION:
· Line 15: I think it would be interesting to include these four factors, even in the Abstract.
· Lines 203-215: What about volatile acidity? Considering a fermentation during 45 days, I think that this information should be included.
· Line 204: In my opinion, the term “moderate” is more an opinion that a fact (moderate sugar content (4.3 g/l)). What about SO2 dose in all these wines? Keeping in mind this “moderate” sugar content, I think this information should be given.
· Line 216 and following lines: information about chips and chips supplier must be given.
· Line 223: Information about barrels should be given.
· Line 228: What kind of glass? Was it a Standardized glass? (OIV, for example…).
· Line 236: This form about pesticides information should be included in Annexes.
· Table 1: This table should be greater, and I would use a lighter grey shadow.
· Line 280: I have some problems with the term “open minded”. Is it a scientific term? How could we measure this openness? I can’t understand it.
· Figure 3: information about axes’ numbers or amounts should be included.
In general: Any tasting test was done about color sensorial analysis? Why? Color is an important parameter in wine sensorial analysis. This point must be argued (at least, authors should give the reasons to not include this parameter).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised version was formed according to suggestions.
