Assessment of Antioxidant and Scavenging Activities of Various Yogurts Using Different Sample Preparation Procedures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article "Assessment of antioxidant and scavenging activities of various yogurts using different sample preparation procedures" is novel.
-At various places style of presentation is not uniform.
-English language corrections needed at various palces.
- Methodology not presented well.
- some references are not presented in journal's prescribed format.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
We would like to thank the Reviewer for appreciating our work and for his/her input to improve the quality of our manuscript. All of the points raised by the Reviewer are answered, each by each, and the relevant parts of the manuscript are now modified accordingly (using the track-changes feature). The following is a detailed list of our answers and the changes/amendments we have made.
- “At various places style of presentation is not uniform.”
The presentation style is now improved through the manuscript.
- “English language corrections needed at various palces.”
The English language is now corrected and improved through the manuscript.
- “Methodology not presented well.”
Corrections were made in the “Materials and Methods” section to improve clarity as well as the quality of the manuscript.
- “Some references are not presented in journal's prescribed format.”
All the references are now presented according to the Journal’s format.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have reviewed ‘Assessment of antioxidant and scavenging activities of various yogurts using different sample preparation procedures’. The paper is poorly written, especially in the results and discussion section, and moreover, the novelty and significance of the study is lacking. Please see the detailed comments:
1. Introduction: page 2, what clarifying reagent has been used, please clarify it. In addition, please add references and give a brief introduction of how these clarifying reagents have been used in yogurt sample preparation.
2. Introduction: please strengthen the novelty and significance of the current study. Does the novelty is based on method development?
3. The methods such as DPPH, FRAP are too long, please consider add references to each of the method and shrunk the length of the method.
4. Results and discussion: I found the author write almost every graph with just one sentence. Please rewrite the whole results and discussion, make sure they are well divided into different sections with logic.
5. Results and discussion: there are a lot of description of the results and comparison between samples, but what do these results mean? The paper lacks a serious discussion. In addition, not much logic exists and repetitive sentences make the reading pretty boring.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
We would like to thank the Reviewer for appreciating our work and for his/her input to improve the quality of our manuscript. All of the points raised by the Reviewer are answered, each by each, and the relevant parts of the manuscript are now modified accordingly (using the track-changes feature). The following is a detailed list of our answers and the changes/amendments we have made.
- “Introduction: page 2, what clarifying reagent has been used, please clarify it. In addition, please add references and give a brief introduction of how these clarifying reagents have been used in yogurt sample preparation.”
Specific details regarding the “Clarifying Reagent” are now given in the respective part of the Introduction section (page 2) of the revised manuscript to improve clarity. It should be noted that this is the first time Clarifying Reagent is used in yogurts, thus, no previous relative data are available in literature. The latter is now stressed out in the Introduction of the revised manuscript.
- “Introduction: please strengthen the novelty and significance of the current study. Does the novelty is based on method development?”
Comments regarding the innovative use are now added in the Introduction (page 2) of the revised manuscript.
- “The methods such as DPPH, FRAP are too long, please consider add references to each of the method and shrunk the length of the method”
The proportions of the analytes in the methods were tested in our laboratory. The methods were appropriately adjusted in order to enable the measurement of the yogurt preparations. Thus, no literature was used in these parts. However, the presentation of the methodologies in the “Materials and Methods” section is now significantly improved, e.g. subsections addition, text size reduction and text correction, to improve the quality of the revised manuscript.
- “Results and discussion: I found the author write almost every graph with just one sentence. Please rewrite the whole results and discussion, make sure they are well divided into different sections with logic”
The text of the “Results and Discussion” section is now significantly improved and organized.
- “Results and discussion: there are a lot of description of the results and comparison between samples, but what do these results mean? The paper lacks a serious discussion. In addition, not much logic exists and repetitive sentences make the reading pretty boring”
Various changes are made in the revised text of the “Results and Discussion” section, considering the reviewer’s suggestion, to improve clarity and favor the reader.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Please include the number of samples in each factory
2. Please include the general linear model of your experimental design
Author Response
Reviewer 3
We would like to thank the Reviewer for appreciating our work and for his/her input to improve the quality of our manuscript. All of the points raised by the Reviewer are answered, each by each, and the relevant parts of the manuscript are now modified accordingly (using the track-changes feature). The following is a detailed list of our answers and the changes/amendments we have made.
- “Please include the number of samples in each factory”
The samples were taken in triplicates. This information is now added in the revised Section 2.1, which is generally improved to favor the reader.
- “Please include the general linear model of your experimental design”
The only use of statistics in our study was to assess the statistical significance between the values of the different samples. Relative information is now given in Section 2.7 of the revised manuscript. No other design was made through the use of modeling.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
Reviewer 2 Report
My comments have been sufficiently addressed. I recommend acceptance of this paper.
