Grapevine and Horseradish Leaves as Natural, Sustainable Additives for Improvement of the Microbial, Sensory, and Antioxidant Properties of Traditionally Fermented Low-Salt Cucumbers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The preliminary results presented in this research paper offer valuable insights into the high potential for sustainable use of by-products, namely horseradish and grapevine leaves, in the production of traditional low-salt fermented cucumbers with high health-promoting potential. While these findings provide an initial glimpse into the potential outcomes of this research study, it's important to note that further analysis and experimentation are necessary to draw robust conclusions.

Investigating the impact of grapevine and horseradish leaves on basic nutrients and phenols in fermented cucumbers compared to raw cucumbers is important for studying their health-promoting potential.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of the English language is necessary to ensure clarity and coherence in a written paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

Title:

• The current title should be shorter. It is recommended that it be shortened to convey the critical content clearly and concisely.

Abstract:

• The wording in some parts could be more precise and more varied. It is suggested that the text be edited for clarity and conciseness.
• The objectives need to be clearly defined. Explain what is the central purpose of the research.
• The limitations and main implications of the study are not mentioned.

Introduction:

• There are no more current references on food sustainability and the circular economy. Incorporate at least five citations from the last three years in this area.
• It needs to be clarified why horseradish and grapevine leaves were explicitly chosen. The authors should justify this choice.
• The wording of the last paragraph needs to be clarified and substantially improved.

Methods:

• Many details about the statistical analysis still need to be included. The authors should fully describe the statistical tests and the criteria used in addition to the programs and licenses used.
• No details are provided on the storage and processing conditions of the samples, which is essential for the study's replicability.
• Sensory analysis requires a more detailed description of the methodology, statistical analysis, and discussion of results and limitations to evaluate this critical component of the study adequately.

Results:

• The figures could be more self-explanatory, and their captions could be more adequate. The quality and clarity of the figures should be substantially improved.
• The main findings and their relevance are not highlighted. The authors should highlight the 2-3 most important or novel findings.

Discussion:

• No limitations or possible biases of the study are discussed. This is an important point to include.
• The discussion should be explicitly linked to the initially stated objectives. This connection needs to be clarified.
• The usefulness of the results for food sustainability needs to be further expanded. Implications are only superficially mentioned.

Conclusions:

• The conclusions are too general and do not highlight the study's concrete contributions and importance. It is recommended that this section be rewritten to emphasize the novel and relevant aspects that emerge from the results obtained.

In summary, although the manuscript has potential, substantial revision and editing work is required to reach the level of quality expected by the journal before acceptance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This interesting study is aimed to valorise the agricultural by-products to support and sustain the circular economy. Some comments are listed below to be considered before the acceptance of the manuscript for publication:

- Lines 16-26: Please correct the interference of numbering with text;

- Lines 40 and 44: I don't understand the word ""ugly crops" in the sentence. Please rephrase and give some examples;

- Line 42: same comment for "look good";

- Lines 51-58 and lines 59-64: more references to be quoted;

- The authors need to justify the addition of exactly an amount of "7g" and "14g" of horseradish and grapevine leaves in the Materials and Methods section;

- Improve the data visualization by using colors in the figures;

- References to be quoted for the introduction:

   - https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/books978-3-03921-434-1

   -https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/foods12203770

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-Lines 2, delete "an".

-Line 3. add "of" after improvement.

-Lines 15, 80, correct "potential application".

-Line 22, add "the" before analyzed.

-Line 25, "low", not "law".

-Lines 17-28, the keywords should exclude words that were already included in the title of the manuscript.

-Lines 37-44, please rewrite these sentences for English improvement using a more academic style.

-Line 50, "leaves" should not by in italics.

-Lines 51-56, references are required.

-Line 60, delete "the".

-Lines 87-91, why were these amounts of leaves selected (7 and 14 g)? 

-Lines 92-94, this description of the cucumbers is more accurate than the one in lines 37-44.

-Line 100, "a", not "an".

-Section 2.2, references should be included.

-Line 174, delete second "changes".

-Line 313, indicate reference of the previous publication.

-Line 334, delete "most".

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language has to be improved. Some sentences are poorly constructed and, in some sections, a non-academic style is used.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed the comments, and the manuscript is accepted in its current format.

Author Response

We appreciate you taking the time to read through and comment on our manuscript. We value your efforts and recommendations. Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed the comments, and the manuscript is accepted in its current format.

Author Response

We appreciate you taking the time to read through and comment on our manuscript. We value your efforts and recommendations. Thank you.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-Table 2 should have a statistical analysis indicating if significant differences were shown among treatments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language of the manuscript could still be improved. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate you taking the time to read through and comment on our manuscript. We value your efforts and recommendations. We modified the manuscript based on your comments. We have highlighted in a different color (yellow) the changes included in the revised manuscript. Moreover, the manuscript was checked for proper English language, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall style by a highly qualified native English colleague.

Comment: -Table 2 should have a statistical analysis indicating if significant differences were shown among treatments.

Response: We add the superscript letters and the description in Table 2 caption: "Different superscript letters correspond to statistical significance." (L251-252)