Next Article in Journal
Salidroside Improves Antibiotic-Induced Gut Microbiota Disturbance and Low Levels of Short-Chain Fatty Acids in Mice
Next Article in Special Issue
Bioactive Peptides Obtained from Legume Seeds as New Compounds in Metabolic Syndrome Prevention and Diet Therapy
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Pretreatment on the Volatile Composition, Amino Acid, and Fatty Acid Content of Oat Bran
Previous Article in Special Issue
Coffee Yield Stability as a Factor of Food Security
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Understanding Quality of Pinot Noir Wine: Can Modelling and Machine Learning Pave the Way?

Foods 2022, 11(19), 3072; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11193072
by Parul Tiwari 1,2, Piyush Bhardwaj 1,2, Sarawoot Somin 1,2, Wendy V. Parr 2, Roland Harrison 2 and Don Kulasiri 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Foods 2022, 11(19), 3072; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11193072
Submission received: 24 August 2022 / Revised: 21 September 2022 / Accepted: 26 September 2022 / Published: 3 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Foods: 10th Anniversary)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the submitted article “Understanding quality of Pinot Noir wine: can modelling and machine learning pave the way?” is of interest for the readers and have interesting findings. Please see the comments below.   

Please clearly present the hypothesis and contribution of your study in the Introduction section.

Line 8-14: Theses lines can be more concise. The abstract should ideally review specific objectives, materials, results, conclusions, and applications as concisely as possible.

Line 37: Why was pinot noir considered for machine learning approaches, explain further in introduction the industrial relevance of this approach

Line 111: provide reference and what’s been conveyed here

Line 122-126: Try to keep the average sentence length around 20-25 words.

Line 140: The review of the literature overall could have been better so the reader is given an adequate background about the topic.

Line 170: Font seems to be different, check throughout the manuscript

Line 203: Was any other approach considered, more explanation anticipated

Line 216: How was this sample size of 18 deemed enough?            

Line 230: Why was this characterization data missing

Line 237: Why was this approach of simulated synthetic data used

Line 268: Tables and figures must be standalone, consider avoiding abbreviations or have it in footnotes.

Line 272: Not clear; more clarification required on how this experimental design was made

Line 284: Was the time of sensory sessions kept consistent

Line 293: On what basis were the participants selected and what were the background information shared to them regarding the study

Line 333: If a different panel was employed what is the expected repeatability of this approach  

Line 357: Explain further how these parameters are critical. Were any preliminary studies carried out?

Line 441, 452: Check the font and spacing.

Line 560: Include the SD on all the possible graphs

Line 795-799: further explanation anticipated

Line 809: Include a comment indicating the potential use of the proposed approach at an industrial level.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Very interesting, well written and novel work on the possibility of modelling the consumers perception of wine quality.

The only few comments I would like to do, and expect the authors to take it into consideration, are:

-          -  What future developments are expected?

-          -  Is it designed for commercial use?

-          -  Can the developed model be used for all wine (other varieties, countries, etc.) or does it need to be validated in other datasets?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Do not require any further clarification, thank you. 

Back to TopTop