The Influence of the Bottle’s Price and Label Reported Information on the Perception of the Minerality Attribute in White Wines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper from Elvira Zaldívar Santamaríaand coworkers describes the use of the CATA methodology to determine if the label reported information or the wine price can influence the perception of minerality that the consumer has when tasting a wine. The works needs minor revisions before being accepted for the publication in Beverages.

Page 4, paragraph 2.2: since Sample A corresponds to the Ideal product, the real samples should be labelled from B to F.

Page 4, Table 2: the Table shows only four samples out of the six that have been used in the tests.

Page 4, paragraph 3: This section should be Results and Discission

Page 10, paragraph 4: This section should be Conclusions rather than Discussion.

English needs to be revised along the whole manuscript. Some suggestions for correction are shown below.

Title: Influence of bottle’s price and label reported information on the perception of the ¨minerality¨ attribute in white wines.

Line 12: wine producers frequently use different strategies such as …

Line 17: …range of wine types and in this context consumers are studded with a vast array of products…

Line 27: …information related to the term “minerality” in the purchasing process…

Line 41: …it is generally accepted that its characteristics…

Line 118: …8 glasses of white wine numbered from 2 to 9…

Line 185: …The so-called penalty analysis, reported in Figure 3, was also conducted…

Line 292:    that price itself is not such a decisive factor in characterizing a wine as “mineral”.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for you comments. I took into account them and I made some changes such as in the table 2 I added the two missed samples. I also corrected the english style. You will find also other changes in the abstract and conclusions suggested for the second reviewer.

Thanks for your help

Zaldivar E.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Results appear quite interesting. However, there are some crucial points to be addressed:

The abstract is misleading: at least part of the first 15 lines should be better integrated in the introduction.

The abstract should be shortened, but report briefly the main results, which are not present now.

Three references are reported in the abstract: the must be eliminated from it, rather all the 18 references reported at the end must be included in the text. At the moment I couldn't find any of them in the text, except Deneluin et al., 2016.

The description of CATA methodology (from line 55 to 82) is misplaced in the Introduction: it should be better included in § 2. Material and methods.

The statistical background of CATA methodology should be, at least briefly illustrated, so a reader can better understand the meaning of what is reported in tables and figures.

The last paragraph (4.) should be better defined "Conclusions" or, at least "Discussion and conclusion".

In this last paragraph nothing is written about the limitation of this research. Furthermore, the Authors should stress its possible implication in term of wine marketing. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your comments they were of invaluable help. I took into account them and I made changes in the abstract and conclusions section. I also enclose the references into the document and explain the statistical details of the CATA analysis.

Yours sincerely,

Zaldívar E.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have complied with all reviewers' suggestions. Now the paper is really improved.