Recruiting, training and managing a sensory panel in odor nuisance testing

Paweł Turek

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258057

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 19, 2021
19 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Prakash Kumar Sarangi, Editor PONE-D-21-12936 Recruiting, Training and Managing a Sensory Panel in Odor Nuisance Testing PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pawel, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by 10.08.2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Prakash Kumar Sarangi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: major revision Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The paper represents a novel work for the society. Sometimes, the awareness is important than analysis for odor nuisance things. Authors should mention about future scope of work for this article. Hence it is highly recommended for publication with minor revisions. Reviewer #2: Reviewer comments Overall this research objective is good and author tried to do some Odor Nuisance Testing, But there are some points to be considered before publishing this papers 1-Authors focused to Recruitment and Final selection (Qualification) approaches on panelist members based on duration of training periods that can do odor nuisance testing. But, there is no proper proof on scientific basis that can ensure for different panels for same food or non-product odor. So, author has to put some efforts/ evidences on this query 2-What are software used for creating these figure and how this odor testing procedure can be suitable for other products that contained many odor compound. This paper only mentioned few examples like n-butanol. 3-There are many old references, that is not suitable for current form of this paper, Go for new references that can support this objects ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS ONE REVIEW REPORT .docx Attachment Submitted filename: Manuscript Number PONE-D-21-12936 _PlosOne-Review comments.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258057.r001
Revision 1
16 Aug 2021 Author Response Response to the Reviewers Reviewer 1 The paper shows a good suggestive work which is essential for Odor Nuisance Testing purpose. It is recommended for publication subjected to following minor revisions. 1. In the first paragraph of the introduction section, the authors are advised to mention more details about PN-EN 13725:2007 standard for more clarity. As written in the first paragraph, this paper does not focus on detailed checks of sensory sensitivity and the principles of selecting candidates as described in the EN 13725 standard (since it provides clear guidelines within the said scope); instead, the emphasis is placed on the requirements included in the scientific standards of sensory analysis. Thank you for bringing forward this issue. Following the reviewer’s comment, part 2 of the paper (Recruitment) has been modified and the more detailed requirements of the code of conduct for Assessors and Assessment Team Members, as set out in the clause 6.7.1 of the EN 13725 standard, are now presented. 2. Further, the authors are advised to mention correct section heading numbers, like 3 for Final selection (Qualification) in place of 2. Section heading numbers have been corrected. 3. The quality of figures is not good. Hence, the authors are advised to show better resolutions in the paper. Figures of appropriate quality have been provided in separate files. 4. The authors should also cite a few more of the latest referred papers. Another literature review has been conducted with the focus on the latest papers on the subject; consequently, some new content has been added to the revised manuscript. (Reference no 3, 7, 8, 13, 17, 32) Reviewer 2 Reviewer comments Overall, this research objective is good and author tried to do some Odor Nuisance Testing, but there are some points to be considered before publishing this paper. 1. Authors focused in the Recruitment and Final selection (Qualification) approaches on panelist members based on duration of training periods that can do odor nuisance testing. But, there is no proper proof on scientific basis that can ensure for different panels for same food or non-product odor. So, author has to put some efforts/ evidences on this query As the reviewer pointed out, the aim of the article was to present the selection and the training procedure for the sensory analysis team, which was created for the purposes of odor nuisance testing. Based on the author’s own experience, resulting from many years of conducting sensory studies, the methods of the analysis, which are dedicated mainly to food products, have been adapted and, consequently, a more extensive training of panelists was proposed and performed. The method of training presented in the manuscript goes far beyond the requirements specified in the EN 13725 standard and includes many other odors that the panelists might encounter. It should be borne in mind that the requirements given in EN 13725, although very detailed, focus only on a single odor (n-butanol) as it was assumed by the authors of the standard that the sensitivity to the reference material would be an indicator of the sensitivity to other substances. Yet, in the light of research in the field of sensory analysis, the selection procedure should be much more extensive. The proposed solution presented in this study concerns the odor nuisance testing team. In the case of research on food products, researchers have at their disposal many more scientific studies focusing on specialized training, which can then be adapted to specific production profiles and subject standards (e.g., ISO 8586:2012 Sensory analysis — General guidelines for the selection, training and monitoring of selected assessors and expert sensory assessors). In the initial stage of the sensory team formation, samples of widely available odors are used to train the panelists to correctly identify the stimuli. The ability to scale them is checked at a later stage. Chemicals and mixtures of known compositions are used to ensure that different panelists receive samples of the same odor and intensity. 2. What is the software used for creating these figure and how this odor testing procedure can be suitable for other products that contained many odor compound. This paper only mentioned a few examples like n-butanol. For the purposes of data presentation and to visualize the panel performance, free software PanelCheck (http://www.panelcheck.com/) was used. This information has been added to the manuscript. In response to the reviewer's question whether such software can be employed for the visualization of other products: it is primarily used to visualize data on panel performance. It also serves to assess whether the panelists’ assessment it consistent and uniform i.e., on its basis, it can be determined whether the sensory team members are able to differentiate the assessed samples. In such case, the number of compounds in the sample is not important for the statistical analysis itself, although it can be expected that with more difficult tasks the uniformity of the panelists’ assessments will be lower. According to the EN 13725 standard, n-butanol is the only substance used to assess sensory sensitivity and to qualify for the odor nuisance testing team. The authors of the standard assumed that the sensitivity to the reference material would be an indicator of the sensitivity to other substances. Therefore, it was also used in this study to see how the team's performance would change after an extended training course in which other substances were also used. 3. There are many old references, that is not suitable for current form of this paper, Go for new references that can support this objects The literature review has been updated and some new content related to the topic of the study has been added to the manuscript. (Reference no 3, 7, 8, 13, 17, 32) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258057.r002
17 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Prakash Kumar Sarangi, Editor Recruiting, Training and Managing a Sensory Panel in Odor Nuisance Testing PONE-D-21-12936R1 Dear Dr. Turek We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Prakash Kumar Sarangi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): accept Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258057.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Oct 2021 Acceptance Letter - Prakash Kumar Sarangi, Editor PONE-D-21-12936R1 Recruiting, Training and Managing a Sensory Panel in Odor Nuisance Testing Dear Dr. Turek: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Prakash Kumar Sarangi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258057.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .