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.
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 #]
It was evaluated before. The manuscript was improved, in deed.
although it can consist of some more physical-chemical experiments, the last revised version of paper structure seems well.
It was valid and clear results.
Now, the language is well-written.
it seems you revised the manuscript perfectly.
no comment.
no comment.
please write: "°B "instead of writing "brix".
Major revision is required, please authors carefully address concerns raised by reviewers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
no comment.
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.