Influence of Different Packages and Storage Temperatures on the Quality of Edible Allium Species
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor,
The manuscript titled "Influence of the type of packaging and storage temperature on the yield and quality of edible Allium species" have studied genus Allium L. ability to stay fresh during storage, and spoilage during storage. The entire manuscript holds a scientific background. However, a better care of the manuscript is required.
Some comments maybe helpfull to the authors are listed below:
1- The title maybe rewritten in the following way:
Influence of different packages and storage temperatures on the yield and quality of edible Allium species
2- table3 either film or bag unify this in the table
3- mg% could not understand this unit either mg or %, and this is significant to the manuscrip.
4- follw the authors' instruction in the word count for the abstract.
5- Line76-78, please add reference.
6- Line136-138 please describe the method and add reference.
7- The authors need to take care of the dicussion section. It is poorly written.
8- The authors need to spicify the type of film or package material used in this study.
The similarities in this manuscript is about 36%. The authors should take care of this. Report is attached.
Good luck to the authors inpreparing their manuscipt.
Best Regards...
Comments for author File: Comments.PDF
Author Response
All comments have been corrected; attached the answers to the questions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research article entitled “Influence of the type of packaging and storage temperature on the yield and quality of edible Allium species” is interesting and the results are not explained with statistical data. However, I have the following queries on the manuscript which should be addressed.
1. There are some typographical and spacing errors found throughout the manuscript.
2. The values provided in the manuscript should be represents in standard deviation and statistical variation.
3. Plagiarism is high : 36%.
4. In line 23, change +6 ... + 80°Ð¡ to +6 to + 80°Ð¡ for clear understanding.
5. In section 27, the authors has mentioned (37.1 mg%). The unit expression is not clear. Check and change the unit expression.
6. In table 2 to 4, check the value expression. In all the table, the values was expressed as 32,4. Check and rectify.
7. Table 3 is not clear check and rectify.
8. Line 198, the authors has expressed +6+80C instead of +6 to +80°C.
9. References are not cited for material and methods. Cite the proper reference.
10. In line 23, the authors has mentioned “Packaging cannot prevent spoilage of vegetables but can protect it against contamination, damage and excessive moisture loss”. Reframe this sentence.
11. In all the tables change sealed bags to hermetically sealed bags to avoid the confusion for readers.
12. Why gas composition of hermitically sealed bags and polymer lined bags has not checked. It is an important parameter for the conclusion?.
13. Why this particular A. nutans A. cyathophorum A. altyncolicum A. turkestanicum varieties has been selected for your study?.
14. Line 168 it is mentioned that “A. nutans had the highest survival rates. A. turkestanicum 168 was stored the worst”. How the authors concluded that A. turkestanicum has lesser shelf life than A. nutants.
15. What is the shelf life of Allium species at ambient temperature?.
Author Response
All comments have been corrected; attached the answers to the questions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract is too long. The introduction should be more foccused on the objective, altough all the info is very interesting. In M&M section indicate the planting space (to make sense of data related to productivity - kg/m2). Lines 132 135- bring a little more details on the performed analyses. I think the description of the fertility conditions (lines 105 - 113) is not necessary. A more general information on soil conditions suffice. Lines 153-156 are more appropriate to the M&M section. Lines 157 - 167 should go to the introduction. Phrase on lines 168-169: rephrase. Lines 198 - 199 - this does not make sense to me. Dry matter is not a result of storage condition (fresh weight, yes) - dry matter of tissues is a result of species, growing conditions etc at harvest. After harvest there will be no changes. Or have I not understood it right - then, better rephrase that statement. The discussion is not a discussion of the results and I suggest incorporating that information (part in the introduction) and the last paragraph to the results section (transforming it to results and discussion). In parts of the text, there is mention to onion eaf color - how was it assessed? Subjectively, I guess, but inform that in the M&M section. The conclusions need to be rewritten - they should be concise, direct and the response to the objective of the work (write them with the verbs in the present tense).
Author Response
All comments have been corrected; attached the answers to the questions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor,
The manuscript tilted "Influence of different packages and storage temperatures on the yield and quality of edible Allium species" Studied the Allium shelf life depending on the packages and temperature differences. The authors have revised the manuscript according to the previous comments. This improvment in the manuscipt, however, creates larger issues that significantly alter the reviewer point of view on the previous decision. The manuscript cannot be published by its current form for the following reasons;
First four lines in the abstract are too long of sentence alomst run on, this won't give a good readership to this particulare paper.
The authors did not mentioned any of the used methodology used in the manuscript in the abstract.
English editing to the abstract need to be considered.
Keyword; instead of keeping quality (quality control) use scientific wording.
Introduction section contains unusefull info: line 39 some are positive do not use debatable sentneces or info.
The first paragraph in the intro can be summarized in one or two sentences.
The second and third paragrath of the introduction contains some information that are not relavent to the study and not in the scope of manuscript. For example, lines 58 to 60 is not related well the study. Line 61 to 65 is too long sentence that takes the reader attention immediatelly Away. The author real start in the manuscript was from the fourth paragraph.
Combined L79-87
L88-95 is very basic info.
L96-98 highlight this as motivation to the study. What type of plastic was it? The authors did not provide it PE is general type of plastic what is the specifics?
L106 Is i native to the land or introduced?
L118 why? What food direction?
L147 English editing and again PE has LDPE and HDPE and more to list varaites.
Line 148 density of 100 um??? The authors should not through the reader by this simple mistakes which is repeated again in all secetions even in the conclusion secetion.
L160 how did the authors differentiate between expiered how did you tell the difference?
Onion L165
Table 2 watch for the significant figures and abbriviations. What does it mean LSD05 ? The arabic numbers are written in 9.9 not like 9,9.
Where is the significant differences between the means?
L202 again not density um?
At the bottom of each table stated "compiled by the authos" this should go in the materials and methods section in details.
Finally, the similarity report of this manuscript indicates 40% was similar to published content, and 16 % of which was from one source.
Author Response
answers are attached in the file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The conclusions shoul be rewritten. There should not be anynmore result data. Good packaging can prevent physical... here youi have to say what is good packaging. Be specific. And the same for ...and proper packaging, neither too tight nor too loose... If I recall right, this was not even mentioned in the discussion section (data on loose or tight - how was it performed? objective or subjective evaluation and etc). As a suggestion: in my opinion conclusions should be only a few phrases - directed to respond the formulated objectives.
Author Response
answers are attached in the file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor,
This research examines the influence of packaging and storage temperatures on the quality and nutritional content of different species of Allium. The study found that hermetically sealed plastic bags and lower temperatures are the most effective methods for preserving the quality and nutritional content of Allium leaves. The research highlights the potential of Allium species as a functional food with high production potential for various functional foods and foods of natural origin. The study also emphasizes the importance of preserving and maintaining genetic resources of the Allium L. genus for food purposes.
Some areas that could be improved in a research manuscript in general: 1. Clarity of language and organization of ideas: The manuscript should be written in clear and concise language, with a logical flow of ideas that is easy to follow. 2. Methodology: The methodology should be clearly described and should include all relevant details, so that the study can be replicated by other researchers. 3. Statistical analysis: The statistical analysis should be appropriate for the data and should be clearly described, so that readers can understand the results. 4. Discussion of results: The discussion of results should be thorough and should include a critical analysis of the findings, as well as a discussion of their implications and limitations. 5. Future research: The manuscript should include a discussion of future research directions, including areas that need further investigation and potential applications of the findings.
Author Response
Future research snould focus on exploring new types of packaging and other types of edible Allium.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I still consider the abstract too long; 334 words - but this is an aspect the editor has to define according to the instructions of the journal. I really do not like the conclusion, They should be direct/concise and confrontable with the objective of the work. There is no need and is also not recommended to bring comments (as the first phrase of the conclusion and the one that starts with: Allium species...). Moreover, figures should not be there unless it is a recomendation (for use of a certain treatment concentration, for example).
Author Response
Nowadays, consumers are looking for products with a beneficial effect, because they are more concerned about their health and well-being.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
