Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This was a well-written and well-designed study to examine a straightforward question about the influence of labels on specialty coffee examination. I found the paper interesting to read and believe it will be valuable to the scientific community. I have a few minor suggestions to improve clarity.

 

L 175. Can you please add some brief justification for the selection of a coffee shop for sensory evaluation? Was this to provide a realistic context for coffee evaluation, or more out of convenience, for example? A brief mention of how context influences sensory evaluation would strengthen this section.

L 185. There is no mention of barriers between participants. 1 meter seems close enough that participants could be biased by the reactions of others. Can you please address how the participants may or may not have influenced others’ responses? For example, were any instructions given to avoid making comments, influencing others, etc.?

L 199. There are a variety of scales that could be used in sensory evaluation. Please provide a justification (and citation) for the selection of the scales.

L 242. SPSS is an IBM product. IBM acquired SPSS Inc many years ago.

Table 1/Figure 3. Please report the data only one time. Table 1 seems unnecessary to me.

L 379. The authors conclude that the acidity was the reason for the lower purchase intention. While this seems plausible, the data is more associative than causative in my mind. There could be other reasons that the fermentation label impacted acceptance other than expected acidity.

L 465. The authors mention of how ethical labeling impacts quality perception brings up an interesting point. The current study tested a label that is strongly associated with sensory attributes (i.e., acidity). Ethical labeling however, does not have a strong sensory association. It could be interesting to add a discussion about how the strength of the association between the label and specific sensory outcomes impacts sensory, liking, and purchase intention outcomes, etc.

Author Response

Our reply is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I personally believe that this article explores the impact of coffee processing terminology on consumer psychology and experience, demonstrating certain research value. The paper is also relatively well-written and reflects a considerable amount of research effort. However, there are some issues that could be addressed. The following suggestions are offered for the authors' consideration:

(1) All participants were coffee consumers from São Paulo, Brazil, which may not represent the diversity and cultural differences of specialty coffee consumers globally. One option could be to appropriately qualify the scope in the paper's title.

(2) The timeliness of the experiment also seems to be a concern. Based on a single session, it is difficult to determine the impact of label information on repeat purchases or long-term consumption behavior.

(3) The "no information" label condition may not be sufficiently "realistic." In real-world markets, coffee packaging with absolutely no processing information is rare, which could affect the external validity of the control group.

(4) Most importantly, there is a considerable body of similar research—for example, studies on how organic food labels influence consumer decision-making. It is recommended that the authors further consider and articulate the foundational rationale, research significance, and novelty of this study.

Author Response

Our reply is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been revised and is generally acceptable; however, there are still a few issues that the authors are advised to address appropriately.

(1) The conclusion section should be rewritten. The current version does not adequately summarize the research findings and fails to effectively present the study's conclusions. Additionally, a discussion of limitations is necessary, but it could be placed earlier in the conclusion section, at the end of the main text, rather than within the concluding paragraph.

(2) It is recommended that references not be cited in the conclusion section. Citations should be placed in the discussion section of the main text.

Author Response

Our response is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf