Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review is on a relevant topic with major challenges in the future. But in my opinion, a review should not be limited to the enumeration/description of works carried out by other authors, it should have a critical perspective on the results obtained, such as what advantages/disadvantages of the different microorganisms described in the review present, as well as the extracts used. In relation to extracts, their added value is in organleptic terms and/or in increasing the biological activity of the yogurt. Do we know which compounds are associated with these characteristics? And in addition to the review presenting a critical perspective on the results of other works, it should point out to readers the gaps that exist and how they can be overcome

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript shows a lot of promise, but some issues need to be addressed before it can be published.

This review article is considered a comprehensive overview that highlights the critical components that impact the fermentation process of functional probiotic yogurt and the essential responsibility of probiotic viability for customer health. However, the title Probiotic functional yogurt: challenges and opportunities is very broad and not specific to the main question addressed by the review. Under this title, other quality aspects, such as the physicochemical and sensory characteristics of the Probiotic functional yogurt should be addressed.

In addition, since the article is “a comprehensive overview” more information is needed to make it “a comprehensive overview”. The amount of information in this article is more considered a mini-review article than a comprehensive one.

In lines 114-115, what does it mean “Check if there's another author discussing this to change.”?

The paragraph (lines 139-146)  should be under the introduction section.  

 

It would be better if the paragraph (lines 192-195) is rewritten to improve the concept.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf