Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on June 26th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on July 28th, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on August 16th, 2024 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 28th, 2024.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Aug 28, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

Reviewers are very satisfied with the revised version. I agree with them that the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication. Thank you, authors, for finding PeerJ as your journal of choice, and look forward to your future scholarly contributions.

Congratulations :)

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

It was evaluated before. The manuscript was improved, in deed.

Experimental design

although it can consist of some more physical-chemical experiments, the last revised version of paper structure seems well.

Validity of the findings

It was valid and clear results.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Now, the language is well-written.
it seems you revised the manuscript perfectly.

Experimental design

no comment.

Validity of the findings

no comment.

Additional comments

please write: "°B "instead of writing "brix".

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jul 28, 2024 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Major revision is required, please authors carefully address concerns raised by reviewers.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The languages of the article was clear, professional structure, table and figures. Although I asked for some background based on the safety aspects of product, the literature was appropriately references.

Experimental design

I wonder if this investigation was enough to fills knowledge gap in the literature as there were only two samples investigated. Methods and details were sufficient.

Validity of the findings

All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled. I added my comment based on one inconsistency.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

1. English language should be revised regarding to several grammar errors.
2. In section 1, 2, 3, 4.1, 4.5, the resources must be mentioned.
3. In line 133, aw is correct.
4. In line 280, a part of the sentence should be corrected like this: "between 2.9-4.5"
5. In line 292, report the results as Brix Degree.

Experimental design

no comment.

Validity of the findings

no comment

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.