All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thanks for addressing all the reviewers comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sonia Oliveira, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have satisfactorily responded to the doubts, questions and comments made on the manuscript.
The authors have satisfactorily responded to the doubts, questions and comments made on the manuscript.
The authors have satisfactorily responded to the doubts, questions and comments made on the manuscript.
The authors have satisfactorily responded to the doubts, questions and comments made on the manuscript.
The reviewers indicate that extensive improvement of the grammar and style is needed. The size and sampling method are critical to further interpretation. A contextual comparison between the literature on commercial durian and wild varieties is also important for this paper.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
In the introduction section, durian is discussed in terms of the genus (Durio sp.) , which each region has various benefits. This does not include any species. But in reality This research is a study of wild durian, which is a different species from the introduction mentioned above. Therefore, the strength of this article should be strengthened by strengthening the focus on the physical properties of wild durian.
I would like to explain the ripe state of wild durians harvested . This is because in each stage of ripening the active substances and physical characteristics are different, which are caused by the enzymes inside the durian pulp.
Grouping with PCA is a good technique for showing the relationship between durian characters in each species.
The aroma volatile of durian is still another characteristic to be fingerprint displayed. Many articles have mentioned the unique characteristics of durian if they are separated according to their odor characteristics such as sulfur, esters, or even amino acids.
The document needs to be revised; there are some typos. Lines 104 and 105 ¿ What does RM mean? Line 138-142. Please describe this part of the methodology in depth: How was the pulp separated from the husk and seed?¿ How were the samples dried?
Line 157, brand, model, and country of water bath used. Minutes or min?
Line 158, brand, model, and country of the centrifuge. Minutes or min?
Line 159. How was it evaporated? Describe the conditions
Line 163. The standards ¿ where were obtained?
Line 169. Brand, model, and country of the oven. 0.2 g, do not usually start a sentence with a number.
Line 194. UV-Vis spectrophotometer, brand, model and country.
Line 252-255. The sentence is repetitive.
Regarding the determination of CFT it indicates that it is per 100 g of sample. And in total flavonoids, it indicates that it is per 100 g of dry extract....
So you are using the same sample to determine both? Or? please clarify this point. The same for the antioxidant activity assays.
Expand the discussion in the physicochemical and phytochemical parts since it only compares with other varieties but does not provide the reason for their results. If it affects the variety, the place where they were grown, etc.
Please restructure the conclusion based on what you report in your study.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.