Artificial vs. Mechanical Daqu: Comparative Analysis of Physicochemical, Flavor, and Microbial Profiles in Chinese Baijiu Starter Cultures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is adequate, but it needs to address several comments for its improvement.

General comments: 

Please added more quantitative data in the abstract. For example: Results demonstrate that artificial Daqu exhibits a X% higher reducing sugar content, X% greater water retention, and a 0.X unit increase in acidity compared to mechanically produced Daqu. Additionally, the statistical significance of these differences should be indicated

In the abstract, the enzyme activities evaluated in the study were not included in the general objective. Please ensure that this aspect is incorporated. 

It is necessary to provide an explanation of the statistics applied in Figures 1 and 2. The authors explain this in the table captions.

While the sampling strategy is described, the text does not specify the number of replicates for each type of analysis (physicochemical tests, enzyme activity assays, volatile compounds, and sequencing).

 There is no mention of the statistical methods used to analyze the data obtained from various tests. Include a brief description of the statistical methods (e.g., t-tests, ANOVA, post hoc analyses) and software (e.g., SPSS, R) that was employed to compare results between artificially trampled and mechanically produced Daqu.

The section describes the use of alpha diversity indices (Chao1, Shannon, Simpson) but does not provide justification for their selection in the context of the study’s objectives. Briefly explain why these indices were chosen and how they relate to the research questions regarding microbial diversity in Daqu.

Beyond summarizing previous studies, critically analyze how these studies differ in methodology or findings. Highlight any controversies or unresolved issues in the literature that your research aims to address.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I have conducted a detailed review, evaluating the structure, clarity, methodological soundness and alignment with Fermentation journal standards. Here are the observations and suggestions to strengthen the content of the manuscript.

1. General Comments

The manuscript addresses a relevant issue in the field of Daqu fermentation for Baijiu production, highlighting the comparison between mechanical and manual production. Overall, the paper is well structured and presents solid experimental data, although there are aspects that require adjustments to improve clarity, organisation, and compliance with Fermentation's editorial standards.

2. Comments in Section

Title

Clear and representative of the content of the study. It is recommended to make it more concise and avoid excessive technicalities.

Abstract

Present well the structure of the study (objective, methodology, results and conclusion). The length of the the description of results should be reduced to comply with the standards of the journal. It is recommended to include key statistical values to support the main findings.

Introduction

Well-founded with updated references. Redundancies in the justification of the study should be avoided. The transition between background and research problem could be improved for a more fluent reading. Include a clearer statement of the study hypothesis.

Materials and Methods

Adequately detail the experimental design. Specify more clearly the number of treatments and controls. Include details of statistical analyses and post hoc testing if multiple comparisons were made. Reinforce the description of the methodology in the identification of volatile compounds.

Results

Presents relevant data organised in tables and figures. Some tables could be replaced with graphs to improve the visualisation of the data (box plots or bar graphs with standard error). Include statistical values in the text when describing meaningful comparisons. Avoid excessively technical descriptions that make it difficult to understand.

Discussion

Relate the results well to previous studies. Further comparison is recommended with similar studies at the international level. To broaden the discussion of the biochemical and microbiological mechanisms that explain the observed differences. Include a section detailing the limitations of the study and possible improvements in future experiments.

Conclusion

Summarise the main findings well. Avoid extrapolations that are not supported by the data obtained. A more concise conclusion aligned with the initial objectives is recommended.

References

They must be reviewed and adjusted to the format required by journal. Verify that all in-text citations match the reference list.

3. Strengths and weaknesses

Strengths: Innovative theme with applicability in the fermentation industry. Good-designed methodology with adequate statistical analysis. Clear presentation of results using tables and figures.

Aspects to improve: The wording in some sections is dense and could be clearer. The discussion should include more comparisons with other studies and strengthen the interpretation of the results. Adjustments in the presentation of references and compliance with the format of the journal.

4. Fitness for publication

It requires minor modifications to improve clarity, coherence, and compliance with editorial standards. It is recommended that the authors make the above adjustments before the manuscript is resubmitted.

Authors: I appreciate the effort put into this work and acknowledge their contribution to the research. I believe that the manuscript has potential for publication after implementation of the suggested adjustments. I hope you find these recommendations useful and I am at your disposal for further clarification.

Yours sincerely,

Reviewer

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was improved according to my comments and recommendations.