Review Reports - Impact of Corn Fiber on the Physicochemical/Technological Properties, Emotions, Purchase Intent and Sensory Characteristics of Gluten Free Bread with Novel Flours

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript (dietetics-2699819) submitted for review is quite interesting.

Although the manuscript is innovative and interesting, I have a few comments, because it is not well written.

Authors, Please note and address the following comments:

Introduction: The background of this study is a little bit poor.

Materials and Methods

In my opinion, a research diagram is needed to better understand this experiment, because now I do not understand which samples were evaluated and in how many repetitions.

Under what conditions was the sensory evaluation carried out?

I do not know how many bread samples were subjected to instrumental color assessment.

Results

Although Figures 1 and 2 look attractive, they are completely incomprehensible to me, and the authors don't attempt to describe the results in the text.

Conclusion

I think the conclusions should be revised to show why this flour blend would be better than others, and why this combination was used

References

References are not cited according to journal rules. Publications from MDPI provide information on how to properly cite. Authors may also find this information in the authors' guide.

Reviewer

Author Response

DIETETICS REVIEW

COMENT REVIEW 1

Dear Authors,

The manuscript (dietetics-2699819) submitted for review is quite interesting.

Although the manuscript is innovative and interesting, I have a few comments, because it is not well written.

Authors, Please note and address the following comments:

Dear editor, Thank you very much for your comments. The manuscript has been reviewed and its considerations have been included point by point.

Introduction: The background of this study is a little bit poor.

Thank you so much. This is a novel study for which there is not much precedent.

Materials and Methods

In my opinion, a research diagram is needed to better understand this experiment, because now I do not understand which samples were evaluated and in how many repetitions.

Under what conditions was the sensory evaluation carried out?

I do not know how many bread samples were subjected to instrumental color assessment.

Experiments were done in triplicates. In each experiment, 3 breads were used in each analysis in 3 regions of the bread (right, center, and left). This information was included in the manuscript.

Results

Although Figures 1 and 2 look attractive, they are completely incomprehensible to me, and the authors don't attempt to describe the results in the text.

Figures 1 and 2 were explained as requested.

Conclusion

I think the conclusions should be revised to show why this flour blend would be better than others, and why this combination was used.

Thank you very much for your comment. They have been included in the conclusions but it is justified that said flour is better than others based on the results of the analyzes obtained and the sensory evaluation by consumers.

References

References are not cited according to journal rules. Publications from MDPI provide information on how to properly cite. Authors may also find this information in the authors' guide.

Reviewer.

Thank you so much. Bibliographic references have been modified in accordance with MDPI standards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The main aim of paper: ‘Impact of Corn Fiber on the Physicochemical/Technological Properties, Emotions, Purchase Intent and Sensory Characteristics of Gluten Free Bread with Novel Flours’ was to obtain gluten-free bread with different types of gluten flours (teosinte, brown rice, white rice) and add corn fiber to analyze and compare physicochemical and sensory attributes to develop a gluten-free bread that meets similar standards as gluten bread, to determine the consumers’ acceptability and the purchase desisions.

From my point of view, the topic of the study is important and really interesting.

In general, the procedure, the study design and statistical analyses are well organized.

However, I would like to indicate minor suggestions for Authors:

(1) Correct the minor mistakes (pages: 1 – ‘consuning’; 4 – ‘The The’; ‘a Tukey postdoc (??) test’; 7 – ‘One One’);

(2) I am not sure, so please explain this aspect in details. Did you ask the exact ‘yes/no’ question to your respondents referring to the purchase decisions (you mentioned in the abstract that you examined the purchase intent; so the question ‘Are you willing to purchase this product/s?’ would be the good option; I noticed that you used ‘EsSense’ and ‘wellSense’ term; however, could you clarify this issue)?

(3) Indicate some practical implications and strengths of your research.

Kind regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

REVIEW 2

Dear Authors,

From my point of view, the topic of the study is important and really interesting.

In general, the procedure, the study design and statistical analyses are well organized.

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your comments. The manuscript has been revised point by point according to your comments.

However, I would like to indicate minor suggestions for Authors:

Correct the minor mistakes (pages: 1 – ‘consuning’; 4 – ‘The The’; ‘a Tukey postdoc (??) test’; 7 – ‘One One’);

Thank you so much. These expressions have been corrected according to your indications.

I am not sure, so please explain this aspect in details. Did you ask the exact ‘yes/no’ question to your respondents referring to the purchase decisions (you mentioned in the abstract that you examined the purchase intent; so the question ‘Are you willing to purchase this product/s?’ would be the good option; I noticed that you used ‘EsSense’ and ‘wellSense’ term; however, could you clarify this issue)?

This question was not asked as a direct question but was asked as stated. Are you willing to purchase this product/s?' The question would be a good option. That is why the terms 'EsSense' and 'wellSense' were used; However, could you

Indicate some practical implications and strengths of your research.

Thank you so much. Based on the results of the chemical and sensory analyses, his comment in the conclusions has been strengthened. Because this new product is accepted by consumers according to sensory analysis and presents good nutritional characteristics, further progress could be made in trying to market it as a new bioproduct with high nutritional importance in the gluten-intolerant population.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic addressed in the manuscript is of interest to the food sciences. The authors have documented the preparation of gluten-free bread with novel flours. Numerous analyses have been conducted. However, the most important is the sensory analysis carried out by 120 consumers. This advances the study. I think that the topic is of interest for the research society.

As far for the topic it falls within the aims and scope of the journal. I have included within the attached pdf some comments for authors to improve their study.

Based on my overall comments, I suggest a minor revision prior to further consideration for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is , in general, good. However, some improvements are required. The authors must see in the attached pdf my comments.

Author Response

REVIEW 3

As far for the topic it falls within the aims and scope of the journal. I have included within the attached pdf some comments for authors to improve their study.

Based on my overall comments, I suggest a minor revision prior to further consideration for publication.

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your comments. We have reviewed the attached PDF and its corrections have been considered in the manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the changes introduced by the authors to the manuscript and recommend it for publication

Reviewer