Volatile Compound Analysis to Authenticate the Geographical Origin of Arabica and Robusta Espresso Coffee
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for your interesting research.
Some points must be carefully revised:
-bibliographic references should be updated;
Table 3 could be better explained and analyzed to to better scrutinize the results.
The main innovations that this article brings are not sufficiently highlighted since this theme is not new in literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript describes and discusses logically designed experiments and presents results that are expected to be of considerable interest to the scientific community. It is an exciting study with an interesting approach. The paper on the whole is well-designed and results in sound. Nevertheless, the manuscript needs a minor revision:
Manuscript in general needs English editing service as there are speech unclarities, long sentences which lose sense and grammatical errors.
The title is close to similar to some previous publications hence I recommend changing the title.
The abstract is not written in a systemic and concerted style. Also, the Abstract lacks data values based on the findings of study relating to different parameters.
In the introduction part should be more highlighted the main aim of the paper, and additionally, what is the novelty of carried research work.The Method should be summarized and made it more clear.
Line 102 What are HPLC Separation conditions?
The results of study have not been compared with the findings of earlier scientists.
The "Conclusion" section should be enlarged by including specific results and conclusions drawn from them, not only the general conclusion of the manuscript.
Replace the references of older years with the reference of latest years.
1. Author has no regard for punctuation. Many improper uses of punctuation have been found.
2. Lack of clear message in the sentences. Some sentences were poorly constructed. I am suggesting author to use short sentences to make his message clear.
3. Author should stick to one point per paragraph. There is a mix-up of points in one paragraph
4. Some paragraphs need to be broken for easy understanding.
5. Avoid redundant text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Rather interesting research has been done that can be accepted by making the following corrections.
- Abstract: Line 9-12: The sentence "In this study, " should be rewritten.
- In the introduction, the necessity and main objectives of this research are not well explained. Work innovation should also be mentioned.
- Although the results were well described, the discussion needs to be improved. In addition to comparing with the achievements of others, the reasons for the results should be well discussed.
- MS lacks a conclusion that must be added.
MS urgently needs to be reviewed by someone skilled in English to fix writing and grammatical errors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks to the authors, with the corrections made, the article can be accepted in its current form.
