Review Reports - Evaluation of the Sensory and Textural Properties of Cheese-Containing Frankfurters Available on the Polish Market

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract states the aim and methods clearly but is somewhat generic in presenting the results. It mentions "significant differences" and "beneficial effect" but lacks specific, key quantitative findings that would hook the reader. Consider adding one or two standout results.
The introduction provides good context on market trends and consumer behavior. However, the transition to the specific research gap could be sharper.
The literature review on cheese powder is relevant but highlights a gap: most cited studies focus on cheese powder in cured meats or as a flavor enhancer. The manuscript would benefit from a clearer statement emphasizing the lack of comprehensive studieson ready-to-eat, cheese-containing emulsified sausages (frankfurters) with different cheese types and forms.
Table 1 is very useful. Please ensure consistency in terminology. Brand A and D list "Processed cheddar cheese," while others list "hard cheese," "La Maar cheese," "ripened cheese." Are these the manufacturers' exact terms? If so, it's acceptable but note the variability.
For Brand B, the cheese content is not specified ("hard cheese"). Could this be estimated from the order of ingredients? A comment on this limitation is advisable.
The results are presented clearly, but the discussion is somewhat interwoven and occasionally repetitive. Consider tightening the narrative.
Table 2, 3, 4, 5: There is an inconsistency in data presentation. Tables 2 and 3 use "Mean ± SD" with superscript letters, while the footnotes for Tables 3 and 4 mention "Median values... presented as median ± IQR." Table 5 also uses median and IQR. This is confusing. The manuscript must be consistent. If non-parametric tests were used for all texture/color/sensory data, then all results should be presented as Median (IQR). If parametric tests were used for some (e.g., WBSF), use Mean ± SD. Clarify this in the methods and ensure table footnotes match the data presented.
The unit for Adhesiveness is given as [g,sec]. Please verify this unit. It is typically reported as [N.s] or [mJ] representing the negative area under the curve.
The discussion effectively links results to ingredients and prior work. However, it could delve deeper into the mechanisms.For example, when discussing the soft texture of high-cheese samples A/D despite high meat content, could the fat and moisture from the processed cheese be acting as a softening agent, interfering with the myofibrillar protein gel network? Contrast this with the potential texture-firming effect of cheese proteins/melted cheese structure in other samples. The discussion of Sample E's success is interesting. It attributes its high score to complex meat blend, seasoning, and additives. Could the specific "ripened cheese" (8%) contribute umami compounds or specific fatty acid profiles that synergize with meat flavors, even if its "cheesy" note was low? This is a more nuanced point.
The conclusion claims "Products with a higher cheese content... were characterized by lower hardness." This is only partially true. Sample A/D (12% cheese) had intermediate hardness, not the lowest. Sample C (5% cheese) was softest. Sample E (8% cheese) had relatively high TPA hardness. The relationship is not linear and is strongly influenced by cheese type and other ingredients. The conclusion should reflect this complexity, perhaps stating that cheese addition modifies texture, but the final outcome depends on a synergy of factors including cheese type, form, and the complete matrix of ingredients.
The term "frankfurters" and "sausages" are used interchangeably. It's preferable to stick to one term (frankfurters) for consistency, as used in the title.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your valuable and constructive comments, which have greatly improved the quality of our manuscript.

A detailed, point-by-point response to all reviewer comments is provided in the attached document.

All corresponding changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript and highlighted accordingly.

Kind regards,
Kacper Kozłowski
on behalf of all co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript evaluates the sensory, textural, and colour properties of cheese-containing frankfurters commercially available on the Polish market using instrumental texture analysis, colour measurements, and quantitative descriptive sensory analysis.

The topic is relevant to meat science and processed meat products, particularly regarding product differentiation and sensory quality. However, the level of innovation is limited, as the study is observational and based on commercial products with highly variable formulations. While the subject is important, the manuscript requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication.

Major concerns are outlined below.

Lines 36–120: Clarify the scientific gap and explicitly state the novelty of the study.
Lines 115–120: Reformulate the study objective to better align with the descriptive nature of market-based product evaluation.
Lines 122–138 (Table 1): Address the lack of control over formulation variables and revise interpretations that attribute effects primarily to cheese addition.
Lines 204–216: Clarify the experimental unit used for instrumental analyses and the number of replicates per product.
Lines 177–202: Provide clarification regarding sensory panel size justification and panel performance reliability.
Lines 232–234: Reconsider the application of Warner–Bratzler shear force thresholds commonly used for whole muscle products.
Lines 249–288: Reassess comparisons with literature data obtained using different product types and analytical conditions.
Lines 260–265: Revise causal interpretations linking cheese addition directly to texture modification.
Lines 298–316: Reduce speculative explanations related to functional additives and texture outcomes.
Lines 420–452: Moderate interpretations of ΔE values and avoid implying consumer relevance without consumer testing.
Lines 456–467: Reevaluate conclusions regarding the effect of cheese on colour in comparison with literature values.
Lines 485–550: Reduce repetition of numerical results already presented in tables and figures.
Lines 649–663: Revise conclusions to avoid causal claims and overgeneralization beyond the study design.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your valuable and constructive comments, which have greatly improved the quality of our manuscript.

A detailed, point-by-point response to all reviewer comments is provided in the attached document.

All corresponding changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript and highlighted accordingly.