Functional and Sensory Properties of Gingerbread Enriched with the Addition of Vegetables
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript represents a study that was to evaluate the sensory quality and functional properties of gingerbread cake with the addition of different vegetables.
It is well written, based on current references.
This study concerns the to produce gingerbread cake dough while maintaining good sensory quality and showing the characteristics of health-promoting as a functional food (antioxidant properties due to polyphenols present in vegetables).
The results are presented in two tables and two figures.
The paper is well structured throughout, and the conclusions are supported by the results. Overall the study is good and adds something new to the existing literature which may have a positive impact.
I have a few remarks that I point out in the attached pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Manuscript ID: applsci-1911879
Title: Functional and sensory properties of gingerbread enriched with the addition of vegetables
Applied Sciences
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your thorough review of our paper. Thank you for your attention, time and your positive and very nice opinion about our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript is well written and has some significant findings. The language is clear and easy to understand. The hypothesis is well stated and clearly defined. I have the following comments as-
Abstract:
i. Gingerbread cake with the addition of different vegetables; please mention the vegetable name
ii. Please make it clear whether the addition of the vegetables is combined or separately; Need more clarity on the experimental design
iii. Moreover, it increases the functional properties of the finished product: please mention p?
Keywords: Appropriate
Introduction
i. Appropriate and sufficient background information was provided to start the work.
ii. The scientific names should be in italics please throughout the manuscript
iii. For improving the hypothesis, authors may include the salient nutritive value or functional compounds in tomato, beetroot, and pumpkin
Materials and methods
i. The formulation of bread should be presented in tabular form
ii. The authors should provide clarity on the incorporation of vegetables and experimental design for general readers it should be clear.
iii. Data analysis: please indicate n?, p?
Results and discussion
The results are well supported by the relevant references, however, there is a need to correlate your L, a and b values with color scores sensory.
Proximate analysis of the bread would have improved the quality of the manuscript.
Some tables are very small and I would prefer to combining them.
Thank you so much for giving opportunity to read your research work
Author Response
The manuscript is well written and has some significant findings. The language is clear and easy to understand. The hypothesis is well stated and clearly defined. I have the following comments as-
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your thorough review of our paper. Your detailed comments enabled us to improve our manuscript. The responses to your comments are listed below, all the changes are included in the new version of our manuscript
Abstract:
- Gingerbread cake with the addition of different vegetables; please mention the vegetable name
We added the information according to Reviewer’s suggestion.
- Please make it clear whether the addition of the vegetables is combined or separately; Need more clarity on the experimental design
We added an explanation in the abstract.
- Moreover, it increases the functional properties of the finished product: please mention p?
We mentioned the p value in the text.
Keywords: Appropriate
Introduction
- Appropriate and sufficient background information was provided to start the work.
- The scientific names should be in italics please throughout the manuscript
We added Latin nomenclature and put it in italics.
- For improving the hypothesis, authors may include the salient nutritive value or functional compounds in tomato, beetroot, and pumpkin
We improved the hypothesis of the work.
Materials and methods
- The formulation of bread should be presented in tabular form.
We changed the description in this section and added the new table according to Reviewer’s advice.
- The authors should provide clarity on the incorporation of vegetables and experimental design for general readers it should be clear.
We added the lacking information to the manuscript.
- Data analysis: please indicate n?, p?
We completed the subsection.
Results and discussion
The results are well supported by the relevant references, however, there is a need to correlate your L, a and b values with color scores sensory.
Proximate analysis of the bread would have improved the quality of the manuscript.
We have calculated new relationships and added some information to the corrected version of our text.
Some tables are very small and I would prefer to combining them.
We merged the two tables from previous version of our paper into one according to Reviewer’s suggestion.
Thank you so much for giving opportunity to read your research work
It is our pleasure to have such a help.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Authors revised the MS as per comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Manuscript ID: applsci-1911879
Title: Functional and sensory properties of gingerbread enriched with the addition of vegetables
Applied Sciences
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your thorough review of our paper. Your detailed comments enabled us to improve our manuscript. All the suggested changes are included in the new version of our manuscript. Only the rpm of the centrifuge we didn’t changed as it was 10.000.
The detailed responses to your remarks and comments are listed below,
Point 1:
how you converted mg/mL GAE to mg GAE/100g as in standard equation you expressed as mg/mL provide calculation of conversion.
The quantification of total phenolic compounds was based on the standard curve obtained using different concentrations of gallic acid (GAE). After the absorbance of the studied samples were measured, we calculated the results from the calibration curve, taking into account the dilution scheme. The content of total polyphenols was expressed in mg GAE/100g of the tested cakes.
Point 2:
I think simply eat pumpkin, tomato and beetroot as vegetable no need of bread fortification baking loss much nutrient than cooking
Cakes are ready-to-eat products eagerly eaten by consumers.
We chose this research topic on account of the fact that it is well known that many consumers look for this type of specialized food that offers them a health conscious choice even for those categories that are ‘indulgent’ types (like cakes and cookies).
The enrichment of the gingerbread cakes with vegetable addition is a favourable option for that.
The purpose of the vegetable addition to cakes can also increase the consumption of vegetables and enhance the nutritional value of such a product.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
It may be accepted for publication.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The innovation of this manuscript is not good enough.
The authors prepared three kinds of cakes based on different ingredients.
The innovation is not good enough. The manuscript design is too simple. The authors only evaluated the antioxidant activity, color, and sensory profiles. The comparison among samples showed little scientific findings. The significant variances of sensory results showed in figure looks very strange, I suggest them to revise that figure. In addition, usually three samples were not enough to conduct PCA. The authors may add more samples.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your thorough review of our paper.
Thank you for your attention and remarks.
We agree with your comments related to small sample size and scientific findings.
The aim of our paper is to provide a balance between scientific analysis and relatively quick applicability of the finding for consumer products. Our experience with consumer acceptance of novelty foods suggests that the chosen characteristics are typically sufficient to give good estimations of consumer acceptance. A more detailed analysis might be beneficial for niche market targeting and product differentiation.
We chose this research topic on account of the fact that it is well known that many consumers look for this type of specialized food that offers them a health conscious choice even for those categories that are ‘indulgent’ types (like cakes and cookies).
The enrichment of the gingerbread cakes with vegetable addition is a favorable option for that. The work is an introduction to further in-depth research in this field and we will expand the scope of research in which we will take your comments into account.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors have chosen an interesting research topic. It is well known that many consumers look for such kind of specialized food that offers them a health conscious choice even for those categories that are ‘indulgent’ types (like cakes and cookies). The enrichment of the gingerbread cakes with vegetable addition is a favorable option for that.
The following minor recommendations should be considered before publication
- line 12: QDP (Quantitative Descriptive Analysis) – in most papers it is abbreviated with QDA, If you want to use Quantitative Descriptive Profiling (ISO 13299), please use that expression in the brackets
- line 84: we read about the information that banana was also added – please mention it also in the abstract section
- line 99: in the present article I accept the description of vegetables (purchased on the local market), but in future studies I strongly recommend to purchase such vegetables, where at least the variety of the vegetables are known, since this is an important aspect from the horticultural science point of view
- lines 112-113: was it necessary to pack the samples for the 24 hours between preparation and testing? Storage of unpacked cakes can alter the texture properties.
- line 118: “The colour parameters were measured 24 hours after slaughter.” – I think this is a mistyping, the right version could be ….after the cakes were ready.
- lines 121-122: “The analyzes were made in three places and individual measurements were averaged.” – please specify what the three places are meaning.
- line 196: ‘Consumer evaluation’ – please highlight this expression (bold or italic)
- line 201: Please specify, how the samples were coded.
- lines 205-216: The trained panellists established the sensory profile of the cooked pasta using the QDP (Quantitative Descriptive Profile) – ‘pasta’ refers to a totally different product. Please rephrase (you can use the wording: sensory profile of the cake samples, etc.)
- line 221: ‘brevity’ I suppose refers to the density of the cake (please explain it at the first use of the expression)
- line 222: ‘overall sensory quality’ – in most research papers we measure the intensity of these attributes. It is also clear from line 225 and on. Please clarify the text around line 222.
- line 228: “The average result in the profiling method was based on 16 individual results”. Since we have read that there are 8 panelists (line 206), it suggests that the test was performed in 2 replicates. Please add this information to the text.
- lines 242-243: “The significance of differences between means was estimated by the using NIR test.” Please specify or explain better what the ‘NIR test’ exactly means here.
- lines 386-387: In the presented study it was shown that some attributes called “others” had a negative connotation. Please clarify what do you mean by ‘others’.
- lines 413 – 415: “The acceptability of texture was highest in the case of tomato cake (TC) and the gingerbread dough with the addition of tomato (TC) was also the most acceptable.” – Please clarify that sentence. I suppose that the two parts of the sentence refers to two questions on the consumer test sheet. Please also consider to write the conclusion in continuous text and not in number bulleting.
Recommendation for further studies (not related to the acceptance of the current paper):
- Gingerbread cakes might have a relatively long shelf life (depending on the recipe and the packaging). A possible research topic could be the monitoring of quality changes of these cakes over time (color parameters and sensory parameters).
- Since you have both preference data and descriptive matrix you could also build a preference map.
Author Response
The Authors have chosen an interesting research topic. It is well known that many consumers look for such kind of specialized food that offers them a health conscious choice even for those categories that are ‘indulgent’ types (like cakes and cookies). The enrichment of the gingerbread cakes with vegetable addition is a favorable option for that.
Dear Reviewer
Thank you very much for your thorough review of our paper.
Thank you for your attention, time and your valuable remarks.
Your comments enable to improve the quality of our paper. We also improved English language.
The following minor recommendations should be considered before publication
- line 12: QDP (Quantitative Descriptive Analysis) – in most papers it is abbreviated with QDA, If you want to use Quantitative Descriptive Profiling (ISO 13299), please use that expression in the brackets
We corrected expression according your remark. We uses the QDP method, as the requirements for this method are met, and not for QDA.
- line 84: we read about the information that banana was also added – please mention it also in the abstract section
We added the information.
- line 99: in the present article I accept the description of vegetables (purchased on the local market), but in future studies I strongly recommend to purchase such vegetables, where at least the variety of the vegetables are known, since this is an important aspect from the horticultural science point of view
We understand your opinion and agree with it. In further research we will provide the specified material.
- lines 112-113: was it necessary to pack the samples for the 24 hours between preparation and testing? Storage of unpacked cakes can alter the texture properties.
This point has been clarified in the text.
- line 118: “The colour parameters were measured 24 hours after slaughter.” – I think this is a mistyping, the right version could be ….after the cakes were ready.
Thank you for the remark. It was our mistake.
- lines 121-122: “The analyzes were made in three places and individual measurements were averaged.” – please specify what the three places are meaning.
We corrected the sentence. The measurements were conducted on 3 pieces/slices of cakes.
- line 196: ‘Consumer evaluation’ – please highlight this expression (bold or italic)
According your advice the text is marked by italic font.
- line 201: Please specify, how the samples were coded.
In the text we added the explanation of this.
- lines 205-216: The trained panellists established the sensory profile of the cooked pasta using the QDP (Quantitative Descriptive Profile) – ‘pasta’ refers to a totally different product. Please rephrase (you can use the wording: sensory profile of the cake samples, etc.)
We are sorry. It was by mistake. We have corrected it. Thank you.
- line 221: ‘brevity’ I suppose refers to the density of the cake (please explain it at the first use of the expression)
Thank you for your suggestion. We corrected the expression throughout the paper.
- line 222: ‘overall sensory quality’ – in most research papers we measure the intensity of these attributes. It is also clear from line 225 and on. Please clarify the text around line 222.
We corrected it according your advice.
- line 228: “The average result in the profiling method was based on 16 individual results”. Since we have read that there are 8 panelists (line 206), it suggests that the test was performed in 2 replicates. Please add this information to the text.
In the text we have added the required information.
- lines 242-243: “The significance of differences between means was estimated by the using NIR test.” Please specify or explain better what the ‘NIR test’ exactly means here.
NIR it was expression in different language. We corrected the expression in English.
- lines 386-387: In the presented study it was shown that some attributes called “others” had a negative connotation. Please clarify what do you mean by ‘others’.
We added in the text the needed expression.
- lines 413 – 415: “The acceptability of texture was highest in the case of tomato cake (TC) and the gingerbread dough with the addition of tomato (TC) was also the most acceptable.” – Please clarify that sentence. I suppose that the two parts of the sentence refers to two questions on the consumer test sheet. Please also consider to write the conclusion in continuous text and not in number bulleting.
We corrected the paragraph according your suggestion.
Recommendation for further studies (not related to the acceptance of the current paper):
- Gingerbread cakes might have a relatively long shelf life (depending on the recipe and the packaging). A possible research topic could be the monitoring of quality changes of these cakes over time (color parameters and sensory parameters).
- Since you have both preference data and descriptive matrix you could also build a preference map.
Once again, we would like to thank you for your valuable comments and your kindness.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did not figure out the previous problems I mentioned. For example, the sensory evaluation still has mistakes. The authors put the two different sensory methods of acceptance and overall liking together. The design of this manuscript is too simple, the scientific findings are weak. The comparison among three samples based on the antioxidative activities showed very weak innovations. There are already many reports conducted on similar experiments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your opinion.
Finally we have found a mistake in our manuscript. We are very sorry. Sometimes expressions are so specific that they are inappropriate. Here is our linguistic limitation.
Someone take our attention that the expression” palatability” was wrong translated. The proper translation of evaluated feature expression should “flavor/taste liking”.
We have corrected it in the document and in the Figure.
We realized that 3 samples for PCA method is the opinion of some scientist not enough but please accept it as in some manuscripts published in high ranked journals we found such an examples (Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 85–95; referring to some publication such a number of samples is acceptable.
The choice of vegetable additives used in the study was based on common knowledge of the health-promoting properties of tomatoes, beets and pumpkins, as well as their easy availability and relatively low price. In the production of the dough we did not use synthetic dyes, antioxidants. The caloric ingredients such as fat and sugar were limited. In our opinion, the choice of ingredients is an incentive for consumers, especially those interested in healthy foods. In addition, the simple recipe proposed in the study makes it possible to produce such cakes at home. In our opinion the benefits associated with optimizing the amount of vegetable supplement allowed to achieve the right balance between sensory quality and pro-health effect.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
