A Sensor-Enabled Smart Tray for Understanding Consumer Eating Behavior in a Restaurant

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article with the title "Sensor-Enabled Smart Tray for Understanding Consumer Eating Behavior in a Restaurant" fits the theme of the journal, however it is not included in any Special Issue.

This study is 11 pages of text, with 10 partial figures (labeled in 5 Figures), 5 tables (4 in the text, one in the Appendix) and cites 19 items listed in References.

ABSTRACT

The abstract lacks conclusions and results worthy of attention.

KEYWORDS

Keywords should be chosen for searching and indexing the article in databases, so they do not have to contain words from the article title, but should also point out the methods and hypothesis of the experiment.

INTRODUCTION

Of the 19 total sources used for citations, the authors used 13 (i.e. 68%) in this chapter, which is not balanced and in particular in line 81, a reference is made to 5 of them without specifying them, i.e. just stating them there, which is not permissible.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The methodology is very shallow and not well structured. The images could have been chosen better, and some would have benefited from the inclusion of diagrams.

I don't want to list all the shortcomings in detail, but it would be better to rework the article in the sense of generally given scientific practices. There is no hypothesis and a more detailed explanation of the experimental method and its goal. That is, it cannot just be trying out some new procedures that technology allows us. They need to be evaluated.

Therefore, it would be appropriate to include several levels of the experiment and more hypotheses. A statistical evaluation of measurable values ​​is also necessary.

REFERENCES

There is also an error here, lines 316 and 317 - references 14 and 15 are in a format that doesn't make sense.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript “Sensor-enabled smart tray for understanding consumer eating behavior in a restaurant”. The study explores the use of a smart tray prototype to analyze consumer eating behavior in real-life conditions. Furthermore, through mathematical processing, the author developed insights into individual and group eating patterns based on the analysis of 39 usable data sets. After conducting a thorough review, I suggest that this manuscript be considered for publication in Gastronomy. However, it is important to address the following concerns through minor revisions:

Major Concern:

Do you think the tray integrating with other technologies, such as mobile apps or nutritional databases?

How can artificial intelligence enhance utensil and action recognition?

How do you think AI could enhance the accuracy of data interpretation in real-time within a busy hospitality environment?

Minor Concern:

Abstract: To enhance its logical coherence, it is recommended to briefly describe the methodology of smart tray for understanding consumer eating behaviors.

Line 40-43. Are there strategies to balance controlling variables while maintaining authenticity in the study of these dynamic factors?

Line 50-53. Would it involve detecting specific actions such as cutting, stirring, or portioning, and then linking those actions to nutritional data or portion sizes?

Line 209-213. Must be implemented in the device for future studies.

Line 279.282. Include the mechanism.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sensor-Enabled Smart Tray for Understanding Consumer Eating Behavior in a Restaurant

 

The information presented in this manuscript is interesting and innovative and could be very useful for quality service control in any restaurant. However, two main issues need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

1.- Experimental design must establish the number of participants in each study group, which should complete the statistical matrix for their respective data analysis. If this does not proceed, please explain clearly why. Although authors presented good graphical representations with information easily understood, the variance in the number of participants in each group evidences a deficiency in the experimental design, which is then reflected in the abundant criticisms that authors made regarding the lack of experimental studies, techniques, or methods of this investigation.

2.- An important aspect that authors highlighted in the Discussion section was the lack of the study they conducted. But it took a vast amount of discussion sentences. So, the information they obtained from experiments appeared to be a preliminary study. It is suggested that authors consider completing the research or enhancing the results discussion and the comparisons with other related works.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx