Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript Number: processes-1695213, titled:

 Assessing Functionality of Alternative Sweeteners 2 in Rolled “Sugar” Cookies

Review 1 – 9 April 2022

Dear Editor of Processes

the argument is very interesting but has to be improved. The introduction section has to be better argued. The bibliography of your discussion of data has to be widely increased and improved because it is very poor. Inaccuracies in the manuscript. In the text remained many underscores after your final revision, I have indicated two, but you have to delete all.

I suggest a major revision

To the Authors (in detail):

1. the argument is interesting but has to be improved. The introduction section has to be better argued. The bibliography of your discussion of data has to be widely increased and improved because it is very poor. Inaccuracies in the manuscript.

1. Introduction section, before to focus your discussion on sugar, evidence the interest of Researchers to improve the quality of biscuits and cookies and support this statement with some proper reference. Please, find, read and discuss at least [1-4]:

[1] Antioxidant Potential of Cookies Formulated with Date Seed Powder.

Foods 2022, 11(3), 448; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11030448

[2] Functionality and Storability of Cookies Fortified at the Industrial Scale with up to 75% of Apple Pomace Flour Produced by Dehydration.

Foods 2019, 8, 561; doi:10.3390/foods8110561

[3] Effects of shortening replacement with extra virgin olive oil on the physical–chemical–sensory properties of Italian Cantuccini biscuits.

Foods 2022, 11, 299. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11030299

[4] Influence of Flour and Fat Type on Dough Rheology and Technological Characteristics of 3D-Printed Cookies.

Foods 2021, 10(1), 193; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010193

1. Line 29, verify the spacing before.. Therefore;
2. Line 32, verify the spacing before… related;
3. Line 57, verify the spacing before… Equal;
4. Line 106 and in the whole manuscript, please, be consistent with other unity of measurements used in your manuscript, do not use inch but cm;
5. 2.3.7 sub –section, please, indicate the significance;
6. Line 181, verify the spacing after … cookies;
7. Line 218, delete the blue underscore after the dot;
8. Line 203 (P<0.05), line 220 (p > 0.05), here and in the whole manuscript, verify how you have indicated the significance and be consistent for: spacing between symbol, letter, numeric values; for capital or small letter for P; italicized or not;
9. Line 268, delete the underscore after.. baking;
10. Line 270, delete the underscore after.. product;
11. The discussion has to be improved and extended. You have to compare your data with findings of other authors. The bibliography is very poor;
12. Extend the discussion for the human health point of view and specutale on a possible daily or weekly intake of different formulation of cookies;
13. Please, include carefully all my comments and write in blue color or evidence differently all the corrections you will do.

I suggest a major revision

Regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.doc

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors focused on the effect of sweeteners on the physical qualitys and texture of sugar snap cookies including spread ratio, moisture loss, color, texture, nutritional profile, and sensory analysis. 

This article can be improved as followings:

1. The current version of manuscript has the track function and can be found on page 6 line 182 and 191, etc. Authors are required to check the uploaded files carefully before the submission approval. 
2. Authors focused on the effect of sweeteners on the quality and texture of cookies. How about the sweetness of the resulant cookies after replacing with the sweeteners? Sweeteness of cookies are suggested to add to this article. 
3. I would also suggest authors to add thermal and rheological characterization of cookies. Due to the change of sweeteners and associated moisture content, is there any difference of baking time and viscosity? Thermal and rheological changes at molecular level are supposed to happen. DSC test for starch gelatinization is required for better understaning the underlying mechanism. Characterization of viscosity of cookie batters is also required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Detailed notes for the work:

1) The literature review is very modest; 16 items, including 13 from the last decade

2) Chapter 2 in terms of methodology is imprecise; the accuracy of the research tools / equipment used should be reported. Subsection 2.3. - the method of some analyzes should be precisely described or relevant works (in which these methods have been described) should be referenced, e.g .:

2.3.2. - Foods - doi.org/10.3390/foods9101498

2.3.3. - Sustainability - doi: 10.3390 / su12083487

2.3.6. - Foods - doi.org/10.3390/foods9101434

3) Tables 3-8 - You do not need to enter combination names under the tables (they are described in chapter 2 (2.1))

4) 2.3.3 - the correct name of the method is CIE L * a * b (up to the Authors' decision)

5) equation nr 2 - what does "Wt." mean?

6) 2.3.6 - The size of the panel is 60 (3x9 is 27x2 water = 54) - explain the discrepancy

7) 2.3.7 - how was the minimum sample size calculated, were the 3 replicates sufficient for ANOVA, were the normal distribution of the data population tested, were the variance in the samples tested, what was the significance level (p / alpha - should be shown in the description of the method, no in the results)?

8) In Chapter 3, at least the F-Snedecor test result with ANOVA should be reported

9) 2.3.6 - information is given twice n = 60, once is enough

10) Conclusions take the form of a summary of the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript Number: processes-1695213, titled:

Assessing Functionality of Alternative Sweeteners in Rolled “Sugar” Cookies

Review 2 – 23 April 2022

Dear Editor of Processes

the argument is very interesting and the Authors have included all my comments. I suggest the publication of this manuscript in the present form.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.doc

Author Response

Thank you for your positive response to our edits of the manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks to the Authors for making most of the corrections. I still believe that "introduction" and "conclusions" could be better.

Author Response

Additional information has been added to the introduction (see paragraph 2) regarding the definition of added sugars and recent trends of sugar consumption.

Improvements have been made to the conclusion to include more information about the treatments and recommendations for further research.