Effect of vacuum freeze drying and hot air drying on dried mulberry fruit quality

Li Wang; Haichao Wen; Ningwei Yang; Hongjiao Li

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283303

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 29, 2022
31 Jan 2023 Decision Letter - Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, Editor PONE-D-22-29075Effect of vacuum freeze drying and hot air drying on dried mulberry fruit qualityPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hongjiao Li, 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 February 25, 23:59 p.m. 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: https://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, Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide 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: Yes ******** 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: Yes ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: Review Report Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your manuscript entitled” Effect of vacuum freeze drying and hot air drying on dried mulberry fruit quality”. I very much enjoyed reading your manuscript. The authors propose that vacuum freeze drying is better method of mulberry fruit drying than hot air drying. They have conducted various test and illustrated the results an appropriate way, with most components in the mulberry fruits using vacuum freeze drying approach are significantly high. Conversely, the findings are seems not novel and previously investigated in few studies. Major comments: I. The findings are not novel and previous studies have already demonstrated that vacuum freeze drying is a better method of drying, but the study has conducted in a very systematic way and has contribution to the mulberry fruit drying. II. The introduction of the manuscript is not adequately structured and need more information to be added. III. The material methods are mentioned in detail, but there are some repetitions, which have compromised the quality of the methodology. In addition the authors should write materials and methods comprehensively. IV. The data is properly analyzed and have presented in well-illustrated figures, but results need more appropriate description and discussion, the authors should highlight the important findings. Minor Comments: i. In the abstract line 5 to 8 are weird, the authors need to rephrase the sentence. ii. In Introduction line 4, the authors should paraphrase the sentence to give correct sense. iii. In Intro line 8 and 9 the sentence making no sense they should be rephrased. iv. The format of manuscript should be carefully rechecked to correct mistakes in the format. v. English must go through a revision, there are some grammar mistakes that compromise the article. Overall your manuscript has potentials and dealing with the interesting topic. The hypotheses seems obvious and the methods simplistic. The vacuum freeze drying is a better method than the hot air drying. The work has important results, but there are a few doubts listed above that must be clarified before accepting for publication. Therefore I recommend for publication only if these doubts and questions are totally clarified and major changes are done. Reviewer #2: General comment: - In general, the paper needs to be written properly with good international English and grammar to improve the quality of the English language. The authors must avoid silly mistakes and other typographical errors. The authors should read the paper multiple times to avoid simple and common mistakes. I would suggest the authors to check the plagiarism (please follow the journal rules!) after writing the paper to avoid any future problem. Specific Comments: 1. The paper is not written well scientifically (please see below!). The authors should maintain a standard English all through the paper taking care of the grammar. 2. The authors should write a more proper introduction with proper literature review (information) and references. 3. The authors should mention the logic of using the given 3 cultivars of the mulberry fruit and should mention how they are different among themselves (it must be written in the introduction). 4. Please write the references for all the information mentioned in the paper e,g ‘’Previous studies on hot air drying and vacuum freeze-drying of mulberry were carried out, but there was a lack of systematic study on the effects of hot air drying and vacuum freeze-drying on the comprehensive quality of different varieties of mulberry…..’’ Here the references are missing ?? 5. Please explain the ‘’Methods Section’’ properly and in detail. Vital information related to method is/are missing. E.g., What is the processing time taken of the fruits from the field to the actual processing of the samples (for the experiments)? 6. Please write the full name of all the chemical used at the place of its first occurrence in the manuscript and later use the abbreviations e.g ABTS, DPPH, TPTZ. Authors have not mentioned the detail of the chemicals used. 7. Authors should clarify why they used different ‘’anti-oxidant assays’’ to measure the same thing? Please mention the logic and the benefit if any (also mention references)? 8. In ‘’Materials and Method section’’ the authors have mentioned ‘’Mulberry (Baiyuwang (D1), Longsang (D2) and Zhongshen 1 (D3)) were picked from Dongsheng Ecological Park in Dingzhou City,….’’ The author should use the code D1, D2 and D3 in the abstract itself where they have mentioned the name of the different cultivar of the mulberry. After that the authors should stick to the code (no need to mention full name everywhere!). 9. In the manuscript, the authors have mainly written the results!! They must discuss their results (Discussion part) in proper and a better logical way based on their findings (results) and the known literature in this topic. The results and the discussion part must be well written and should make a better sense. 10. The ‘’Conclusion Section’’ should also be ‘’re-written’’ properly based on the results with future perspective etc. ****** 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: Yes: Dr. Arif Mohammed ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283303.r001
Revision 1
14 Feb 2023 Author Response Reply to all comments point-by-point (Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-29075) The authors’ replies are in blue. COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR: Reviewer 1# 1.The findings are not novel and previous studies have already demonstrated that vacuum freeze drying is a better method of drying, but the study has conducted in a very systematic way and has contribution to the mulberry fruit drying. [Reply] Thank you very much for your comments. Yes, there have been many researches on fruit drying methods, but most of them focus on the influence of drying methods on fruit quality, or the advantages and disadvantages of different drying methods. This paper mainly studies the physical and chemical analysis, nutritional composition, functional composition and antioxidant capacity of fruits under different drying methods. This is one of the reasons for our research. We hope to use mulberry as the test material to get the difference of fruit quality under different drying methods. 2 The introduction of the manuscript is not adequately structured and need more information to be added. [Reply] The introduction of this article has been added. Thank you for your valuable comments. 3. The material methods are mentioned in detail, but there are some repetitions, which have compromised the quality of the methodology. In addition the authors should write materials and methods comprehensively. [Reply] Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have rewritten the materials and methods. 4. The data is properly analyzed and have presented in well-illustrated figures, but results need more appropriate description and discussion, the authors should highlight the important findings. [Reply] We have corrected the part of description and discussion, thank you for your suggestion. 5. In the abstract line 5 to 8 are weird, the authors need to rephrase the sentence. [Reply] The abstract of this paper has been revised. please see line 12-19 of the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”, Thank you for your valuable comments. 6. In Introduction line 4, the authors should paraphrase the sentence to give correct sense. [Reply] Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have corrected it. 7. In Intro line 8 and 9 the sentence making no sense they should be rephrased. [Reply] Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have corrected it. 8. The format of manuscript should be carefully rechecked to correct mistakes in the format. [Reply] We have corrected it according to the manuscript format. Thank you for your comments. 9. English must go through a revision, there are some grammar mistakes that compromise the article. [Reply] We have modified the English language appropriately. Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We will continue our efforts to improve our English in the future. COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR: Reviewer 2# 1.The paper is not written well scientifically (please see below!). The authors should maintain a standard English all through the paper taking care of the grammar. [Reply] We have modified the English language appropriately. Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We will continue our efforts to improve our English in the future. 2. The authors should write a more proper introduction with proper literature review (information) and references. [Reply] Thank you very much for your suggestion. The introduction part has been revised and appropriate references have been added. please see line 24-65 of the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” 3. The authors should mention the logic of using the given 3 cultivars of the mulberry fruit and should mention how they are different among themselves (it must be written in the introduction). [Reply] Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have revised the manuscript. In this paper, three mulberry varieties were planted in Dingzhou for 5 years. Bai Yu Wang was a white variety, Longsang was a northern black variety, and Zhong Shen 1 was a southern purple black variety. please see line 62-63 of the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” 4. Please write the references for all the information mentioned in the paper e,g ‘’Previous studies on hot air drying and vacuum freeze-drying of mulberry were carried out, but there was a lack of systematic study on the effects of hot air drying and vacuum freeze-drying on the comprehensive quality of different varieties of mulberry…..’’ Here the references are missing ?? [Reply] We have added the references for this part, Please see line 421-423 of the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”. 5. Please explain the ‘’Methods Section’’ properly and in detail. Vital information related to method is/are missing. E.g., What is the processing time taken of the fruits from the field to the actual processing of the samples (for the experiments)? [Reply] Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have added this part. Please see line 68-69 of the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”. 6. Please write the full name of all the chemical used at the place of its first occurrence in the manuscript and later use the abbreviations e.g ABTS, DPPH, TPTZ. Authors have not mentioned the detail of the chemicals used. [Reply] We have made some changes in the article, Please see line 71-73 of the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”. Thank you very much for your valuable advice. 7. Authors should clarify why they used different ‘’anti-oxidant assays’’ to measure the same thing? Please mention the logic and the benefit if any (also mention references)? [Reply] References have been reviewed and cited, please refer to lines 489-490 of "Revised Manuscript with Track Changes". 8. In ‘’Materials and Method section’’ the authors have mentioned ‘’Mulberry (Baiyuwang (D1), Longsang (D2) and Zhongshen 1 (D3)) were picked from Dongsheng Ecological Park in Dingzhou City,….’’ The author should use the code D1, D2 and D3 in the abstract itself where they have mentioned the name of the different cultivar of the mulberry. After that the authors should stick to the code (no need to mention full name everywhere!). [Reply] Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have used codes D1, D2 and D3 in the abstract, and will stick with them for the rest of the article. 9. In the manuscript, the authors have mainly written the results!! They must discuss their results (Discussion part) in proper and a better logical way based on their findings (results) and the known literature in this topic. The results and the discussion part must be well written and should make a better sense. [Reply] Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have revised the manuscript. Please refer to the manuscript. 10.The ‘’Conclusion Section’’ should also be ‘’re-written’’ properly based on the results with future perspective etc. [Reply] Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have corrected the content of the conclusion, please refer to the manuscript. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283303.r002
16 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, Editor PONE-D-22-29075R1Effect of vacuum freeze drying and hot air drying on dried mulberry fruit qualityPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hongjiao Li, 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 February 28, 11:59 p.m. 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: https://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, Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Dear Authors, Please check the comments in the attached file. 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: PONE-D-22-29075_R1reviewed .pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283303.r003
Revision 2
2 Mar 2023 Author Response Dear editor, Thank you very much for sending the reviewers’ comments on our manuscript entitled “Effect of vacuum freeze drying and hot air drying on dried mulberry fruit quality” (Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-29075). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have studied the comments very carefully and have made corrections for the whole paper. We believe that we substantially revised the manuscript following the reviewers’ comments. All comments have been responded to point-to-point in “Response to Reviewers”, which also have been incorporated to our manuscript in “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”. And the final clean version is “Manuscript”. We have also modified the picture format in “Picture”. In addition, we have made corrections according to the format of the references in this publication. Thank you for you giving us the opportunity to submit our revised manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Best regards, Sincerely yours, Hongjiao Li Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283303.r004
6 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, Editor Effect of vacuum freeze drying and hot air drying on dried mulberry fruit quality PONE-D-22-29075R2 Dear Dr. Hongjiao Li, 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, Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283303.r005
Formally Accepted
12 Mar 2023 Acceptance Letter - Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, Editor PONE-D-22-29075R2 Effect of vacuum freeze drying and hot air drying on dried mulberry fruit quality Dear Dr. Li: 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 Professor Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283303.r006

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 .