Changes in the Chemical and Sensory Profile of Coffea canephora var. Conilon Promoted by Carbonic Maceration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

   1. The manuscript has a 32 % similarity index indicating high amounts of plagiarised content. The authors are seriously instructed to reduce it as it would create copyright issues for the authors as well as MDPI publishers in future (Similarity index report attached for reference and further corrections).

·   2. The problem addressed is a meagre process standardisation for Coffea canephora var. Conilon from the existing established method of Coffea arabica. The authors would have taken a depth analysis of the biochemical parameters.

·   3. However, the planning of the experiment, execution and analysis were done perfectly.

·   4. The manuscript is written well with a good flow in the introduction part depicting the gaps identified and the need for their addressing.

·         5. Materials and methods are appropriate and adequate enough

·   6. Results and Discussion were presented separately, it would be more appropriate for the readers if both these sections could be merged together as seen in many previously published manuscripts of the journal (Agronomy).

·     7. The conclusion part is too elaborative, try to make it crispy and meaningful.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Ponto 1: O manuscrito possui um índice de similaridade de 32% indicando grande quantidade de conteúdo plagiado. Os autores são seriamente instruídos a reduzi-lo, pois isso criaria problemas de direitos autorais para os autores, bem como para os editores de MDPI no futuro (relatório de índice de similaridade anexado para referência e correções adicionais).

Resposta 1: Observou-se que mais de 90% dos plágios detectados no manuscrito são oriundos do tópico Material e métodos. A metodologia descrita é do nosso grupo de pesquisa e por isso foi observada essa semelhança com outros estudos. Fiz alguns ajustes no restante do texto e fiz referência a mais alguns pontos que não foram mencionados antes (na metodologia).

Ponto 6: Resultados e Discussão foram apresentados separadamente, seria mais apropriado para os leitores se ambas as seções pudessem ser mescladas como visto em muitos manuscritos publicados anteriormente da revista (Agronomia).

Resposta 6: Embora as instruções da Agronomia para os autores descrevam que os resultados podem ser combinados com a discussão, não foi sugerido que fosse estritamente necessário. Assim, como em alguns manuscritos já observados nesta revista, decidimos manter esses tópicos separados. No entanto, se o editor manifestar a necessidade de combinar os tópicos, forneceremos o documento ajustado.

Ponto 7: A parte da conclusão é muito elaborada, tente torná-la crocante e significativa.

Resposta 7: Conforme sugerido, fizemos algumas alterações no texto desse tópico.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors presented a study about utilising carbonic maceration to enhance the chemical and sensory evaluation of coffee fermentation. The study shows novelty but still needs more work to be accepted for publication.

ABSTRACT 

Line 27: “The study occurred…”, change to “the study was implemented…”. Review similar structure points and change accordingly.  

INTRODUCTION 

The authors need to clearly show the gap in research about specialty coffee fermentation that encourages the possibility of implementing the study.  

Materials and Methods 

Line 94: follow the same pattern for citation in the whole manuscript.

Line 128: same as in line 94.

What was the experimental design in the study?. The authors mentioned the statistical analysis and not the design. Why wasn’t the response surface methodology used?

Results

Table 1: not clear. Yielding a generic regression equation is better for both temperature and fermentation time.

Table 2: the meaning of CP1, CP2 should also be listed in the title.

Figure 2: not clear, needs enhancement

Figure 3: why is the figure title placed if there is a caption?

Consistency in figures fonts, font types should be maintained all over the manuscript.

Spectroscopic modelling is not enough presented in the manuscript.

Discussion 

The authors have discussed the results in an efficient way.

The authors need to adhere to the journal citation style in the whole manuscript.   

Conclusions  

The authors should consider enhancing the conclusion section as it doesn’t show the objectives, results in the required way.   

Author Response

The answer is listed in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx