Evaluation of the Quality of Raspberries (Rubus idaeus L.) Grown in Balanced Fertilization Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

An interesting subject, but now the manuscript lacks quality.

·         he title definitely needs to be improved, now it doesn't reflect what the whole manuscript actually has.

·         The manuscript has little connection between each of its parts (title, objective, methodology, results, discussion and conclusions), this must be improved.

·         The introduction of the manuscript mixes many issues, it does not focus on a single idea.

·         I consider figure 1 not necessary. Instead of these figures that you have in the methodology, you should add figures in the results.

·         In the abstract he talks about several things, he is not clear about what the manuscript presents.

·         In 2.1 Characteristics of varieties Too much description for varieties. It is in the materials and methods part, not in the introduction. I suggest summarizing from line 142-164. In the methodology, mix information that should go in the introduction and not together with the methodology.

·         The methodology is too extensive, the description is exaggerated. I suggest summarizing and focusing the methods that lead to fulfilling the objective of the work. It has many methods or descriptions that have little relation to the main objective of the work.

·         The results are focused on another objective, and not on what the objective of the manuscript really states.

·         Some results are not important, there are too many isolated things, that in the end the work is poorly understood.

·         I suggest improving the conclusions of the work, now it does not respond to the purpose of the investigation. Write several things but the conclusions are not clear, little relation to the objective. Well, in itself, it should start improving the objective.

Author Response

Replies to review 1.

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your constructive comments and we appreciate your commitment and willingness to cooperate in order to improve our work.

1. The title definitely needs improvement, currently it does not reflect what the whole manuscript actually contains.

Answer 1. The title of the paper has been corrected to read: “Evaluation of the quality of raspberries (Rubus idaeus L.) grown in balanced fertilization conditions”

2. The manuscript has little connection between the individual parts (title, purpose, methodology, results, discussion and conclusions), this should be corrected.

Answer 2. Thank you for noticing this. I understand that the manuscript may give such an impression due to the multifaceted nature of the research subject. We take this into account and will do everything in our power to improve these links. I will focus on improving the coherence and logical flow between the various elements of the manuscript to make the whole more understandable and flowing. Thank you again for your attention and we will strive to make corrections in this regard. In addition, the work was shortened, in accordance with the reviewer's comments, thanks to which it will be more transparent and coherent.

3. The introduction of the manuscript combines many issues, it does not focus on one idea.

Answer 3. The work, as indicated in the summary of the "Introduction" chapter, is multi-threaded, the authors set themselves several goals and set a research hypothesis, therefore it does not focus on one idea or one goal. In the introduction, the influence of raspberry genetic features on the yield and quality of the raw material was supplemented.

4. I don't think Figure 1 is necessary. Instead of the numbers you have in the methodology, you should add the numbers in the results.

Answer 4. Of course, Figure 1 can be removed, but it informs about the location of the research, talks about the concentration of raspberry cultivation in this region of Europe and enlivens the text of the work, so it has been left.

5. In the summary it says several things, it is not clear what the manuscript represents.

Answer 5. The abstract of the paper has been corrected in accordance with the instructions for authors. It is currently structured and presents the background of the work at the beginning, then the purpose of the work, methodological assumptions, results and the most important conclusion.

6. There are too many descriptions of varieties in section 2.1 "Characteristics of varieties". It is in the materials and methods section, not in the introduction. I suggest a summary from lines 142-164. In methodology, you mix up information that should be in the introduction, not together with the methodology.

Answer 6. In the characteristics of varieties (line 142-164) only 2 varieties that took part in the research were described. Their description has been significantly shortened, as suggested by the reviewer.

7. The methodology is too extensive, the description is exaggerated. I propose to summarize and focus on the methods that lead to the achievement of the goal of the work. It contains many methods or descriptions that have little relevance to the main purpose of the work.

Answer 7. Thank you for your comment regarding the methodology presented in the manuscript. I understand that the reviewer is disturbed by the description of the many methods that were used in the experiment. We take this into account and focus on the relevant methods that lead to the achievement of the work goal and clarify key methodological aspects that are important for understanding the process leading to the work goal. We would like to mention, however, that the methodology of the manuscript is adapted to the requirements of the journal "Commodity" and the instructions for authors. Since the work concerns the influence of genetic features of raspberry cultivars fruiting on two-year-old shoots and balanced fertilization, it requires describing the conditions of conducting the field experiment and meteorological conditions, both during the wintering of shoots and during vegetation, as these conditions directly affect the size and quality of the yield. The methodology of quantitative and qualitative yield determinations is essential in commodity studies. The descriptions of the methods are strongly related to the purpose of the work. Other descriptions, especially the description of meteorological conditions, have been significantly shortened and 2 tables with weather descriptions have been eliminated. We are grateful to the reviewer for this valuable comment, which helped us to improve the methodology and focus on the most important research elements consistent with the main goal of the work.

8. The results focus on a different purpose rather than what really defines the purpose of the manuscript.

Answer 8. We thank the Reviewer for their attention. The results of our work focus on aspects that we consider important and relevant to our study. While the purpose of the manuscript can be interpreted differently, our analysis focused on an area we consider central to our research. We are aware that there are many potential research directions and goals that could be adopted, but we decided to focus on those that seemed to us the most valuable. We believe that our results have made an important contribution to the scientific literature, although they do not necessarily fully reflect all possible goals that could be assumed in the context of the manuscript.

9. Some results are not important, there are too many isolated things that ultimately the work is misunderstood.

Answer 9. Thank you for your interest in our work. We understand the reviewer's concerns about certain results or aspects thereof. We would like to emphasize that our research was aimed at examining a wide range of topics and providing a comprehensive view of the discussed issues. As a result of this approach, there may be some elements that are not essential to the main conclusions. However, each result we collected had its place in the context of the study and enriched our knowledge on the subject. We realize that this can lead to difficulties in interpretation, however, we try to cover the various aspects of the subject. We want to assure you that we are open to constructive criticism and are ready to take further action to better clarify uncertainties that may arise from our work.

10. I suggest correcting the conclusions of the work, it currently does not correspond to the purpose of the investigation. Write a few things, but conclusions are not clear, little connection to the goal. Well, that in itself should start to improve the target.

Answer 10. We thank the Reviewer for his attention and constructive opinion about our work. We are aware that conclusions are a key element of any scientific publication and that they should clearly reflect the purpose of the study. I agree that there is room for improvement in our conclusions to better suit the purpose of the investigation. We take your suggestion personally and commit to rethinking and amending our conclusions. As a result of these industries, the Conclusions have been redrafted. It is worth noting that the research process is dynamic and our work can open the door to further research and reflection. We are convinced that the analysis of our conclusions can bring positive results in the context of the purpose of the study. We are grateful to the Reviewer for his constructive comments and appreciate his commitment and willingness to cooperate in improving our conclusions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The paper has numerous shortcomings, making it unacceptable for publication in its current form.

You can find all the suggestions for improving the paper in the comments below.

Abstract:

Shorten the aim; in the results part, provide specific results rather than general sentence; include one concluding sentence.

Keywords:

Reduce the number of key words; the key words should not overlap with the words in the title.

Introduction:

Lines 75-97: remove the part related to phenols and antioxidant activity since they are not the subject of study.

The literature citation is too extensive, it is necessary to shorten it and include only the literature relevant to study.

Material and methods

Lines 185-200, the explanation of how fertilization was conducted, specifically the experimental design, is not well-detailed. Please provide better explanation of this section.

Lines 213 and 215, below Figure 1, it states that the fruits were packed in 0.5 kg packaging, while in the text below, it states that they were in 0.25 kg?

Tables 1, 2 and 3, Meteorological conditions: it is not necessary to show meteorological parameters in such detail. It is sufficient to display monthly averages, multi-year averages and HTC. It is also better to display meteorological data in the form of Figures. Also explaining the meteorological parameters in detail is redundant. Tables and text related to meteorological conditions are written on 4 pages which is very long. Explain meteorological conditions only in brief.

Table 4., all numbers in the table should have the same number of decimal places

Line 350, Table 1 or Table 5?

Results

Tables 6-15, mean values are shown, but without standard deviation as indicated in material and methods, part statistic. Also, it is written that the Tukey test was performed, but there are no letters that should indicate differences between means. On the other hand, below the table, it notes that an LSD test was performed???

Disscussion

The discussion is written on 7 pages, which is too extensive. Too many references and extensive writing about findings that are common. It should focus on the obtained results, explain them and compare with the results of similar research.

Conclusion

Generally known facts should not be written in the conclusion. The conclusion should be based on the key results obtained in this study.

References

The references are not formatted according to the journal's requirements.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Replies to Reviewer 2.

1. Abstract: Shorten the target; in the results part, give specific results, not a general sentence; contain one final sentence.

Answer 1: The short version of the research objective highlights the main aspects that should be included in the objective, eliminating additional details. One sentence from the purpose of the work was transferred to the methodology. An abstract can only contain 200 words, and the authors exceeded this threshold by 30 words. Therefore, it is impossible to present specific research results in such a short summary, but they are presented in detail in the chapter "Research results". Only three sentences of the summary were formulated in a similar way. In the further part of the work, all necessary structural elements of the work are appropriately extended and discussed.

2. Keywords: Reduce the number of keywords; keywords should not coincide with the words in the title.

Answer 2.  keywords have been changed to the following, related to the subject of the work: raspberry, quality, commodity assessment, Cultivation conditions, nutrient management, sensory evaluation, post-harvest handling, marketability

3. Rows 75-97: delete the part on phenols and antioxidant activity as they are not tested.

Answer 3. At the Reviewer's suggestion, a large paragraph on the antioxidant activity of raspberries was removed. However, this is one of the greatest advantages of raspberry fruit and it is hard not to mention it.

4. Citing literature is too extensive, it is necessary to shorten it and include only literature relevant to the study.

Answer 4: Only essential literature items are included in the references. All literature items included were carefully used and were necessary either in the introductory part, or in the chapter "Material and methods" or in the chapter "Discussion" and deleting any of them would result in a gap in citations. Really poorly used items from the literature list have been deleted

5. Material and methods
6. In lines 185-200, the explanation of how fertilization was carried out, specifically the design of the experiment, is not very detailed. Please explain this section better.

Answer 5a: In the chapter "Material and methods", as suggested by the Reviewer, it was explained in detail how fertilization was carried out in the field experiment.

1. In lines 213 and 215 under figure 1 it says that the fruit was packed in 0.5 kg packages, while in the text below it says that they were in 0.25 kg packages?

Answer 5b)  Sorry for the mistake, the net weight of the packages was 0.25 kg. Necessary corrections were made in the text and in the titles of figures.

1. Tables 1, 2 and 3, Meteorological conditions: there is no need to present such detailed meteorological parameters. Just view monthly, multi-year and HTC averages. It is also better to display meteorological data in the form of graphs. It is also unnecessary to explain the meteorological parameters in detail. Tables and text relating to weather conditions are written on 4 pages, which is very long. Briefly explain the meteorological conditions.

Answer 5b): We agree with the Reviewer regarding the description of the meteorological conditions. One table with meteorological data has been left and the description of these conditions has been significantly shortened.

1. Table 4, all numbers in the table should have the same number of decimal places

Answer 5 d)  In Table 4, the accuracy of the data has been improved to 2 decimal places.

1. Line 350, Table 1 or Table 5?

Answer 5e)  in line 350 the table number has been corrected.

6. Results
7. A) Tables 6-15, mean values are shown, but without standard deviation, as indicated in the material and methods, part statistics.

Showing averages with standard deviation has many advantages because it shows how you measure central tendency: the average values reflect the central tendency of your data. It also allows you to understand what the typical value in the sample is. It is also helpful in comparing groups: Showing the average values for different groups allows you to compare them with each other. It can be identified whether there are significant differences between the groups in the parameter under study. Contextualizing the results ensures that the standard deviation reflects the dispersion of the data around the mean. The larger the standard deviation, the greater the variability of the data. This is useful for understanding how much the results vary within a sample. It also gives us Precision Information: the standard deviation, which is a measure of the precision of the data. The smaller the standard deviation, the more concentrated the scores are around the mean. A higher standard deviation indicates greater volatility and greater differences between the values in the sample. Showing mean values with standard deviation therefore provides important information about the characteristics of the sample and helps in data analysis and interpretation of results.

Answer A: The resulting data was subjected to ordinary analysis of variance and not to ANOVA, which does not detract from its value. As a result of the reviewer's suggestion, an ANOVA analysis of variance was carried out, which allowed to place letter data next to the mean values. However, the paragraph on descriptive statistics was removed from the methodology, so as not to extend the already too large work. The materials will be used to write the next work.

1. B) It also says that Tukey's test was performed, but there are no letters to indicate differences between the means. On the other hand, below the table there is information that an LSD test was performed?

Answer B) The LSD0.05 requested by the Reviewer is the smallest significant difference that can be observed between the two population means at a significance level of 0.05 (5%). It is an abbreviation of the English term "Least Significant Difference" and refers to a statistical tool used in comparative analysis between groups or levels of variables in research studies. LSD0.05 is used to determine whether differences between the mean values of different groups are statistically significant. If the difference between the two means exceeds the value of LSD0.05, then it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between the groups.

7. Discussion The discussion is written on 7 pages, which is too long. Too many references and extensive writing about common findings. Focus on the results obtained, explain them and compare them with the results of similar studies.

Response 7: Dear Reviewer, the 'Discussion' section has been shortened as much as possible.

8. In the summary, you should not write generally known facts. The conclusion should be based on the key results obtained in this study.

Answer 8: A research conclusion should summarize the key findings of the research. According to recognized authorities in this field, the application should include:

• Summary of results: that is, a concise presentation of what we were able to learn from the conducted research.
• Confirmation or rejection of hypotheses: reference was made to the original hypotheses or research questions and a clear statement was made as to whether the study confirmed or rejected these hypotheses. If a hypothesis cannot be unequivocally confirmed or rejected, reasons and recommendations for future research are discussed
• The main conclusions from the research are presented and it is discussed how these results affect the research field or solve existing problems.

Conclusions were based on available evidence and research results, not speculation or personal belief. We have also tried to make the conclusions understandable to the reader, regardless of his previous knowledge of the subject. We fully agree with the reviewer and the conclusions were formulated in this spirit.

9. References: References are not formatted in accordance with journal requirements

Answer 9. References have been formatted as required for authors.

10. Comments on English quality: Minor English edition required.

Answer10: Necessary corrections have been made to the English language.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Replies to Reviewer 3.

Dear Reviewer, thank you for taking the time to read our work and positively evaluate it. We tried to improve the work according to your comments and suggestions. This allowed us to improve the quality of work

1. The content is too long and the author should shorten it.

Answer 1. Dear Reviewer, thank you for your attention. The text of the manuscript has been significantly shortened as you suggested.

2. There are too many tables. It is recommended to place the tables in the methods section of the supplementary file.

Answer 2. Dear Reviewer, thank you for your attention. Two tables on meteorological conditions have been removed from the text of the manuscript. Other tables have been shortened and a legend added. We believe that in this form they are more readable and better kept in the text of the manuscript, rather than in supplementary materials.

3. Resize Figure 2 to the same size as Figure 3.

Answer 3. Dear reviewer, thank you for your attention. Figure 2 size corrected. In addition, the quality of drawings has been improved.

4. Comments on the quality of the English language - Moderate edition of the English language required

Answer 4. The English language has been edited.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has made some revisions according to the comments