All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thanks for addressing all the reviewer comments.
See specific comments.
See specific comments.
See specific comments.
Manuscript titled “Comparative analysis of nutrient composition and antioxidant activity in three dragon fruit cultivars” was submitted after being initially revised. Comments and suggestions made by the present reviewer include:
1. Rephrasing an association made between iron present in dragon fruit and hemoglobin concentration. The change was made.
2. Similarly, a statement regarding diabetes and fiber was edited.
3. Completing an incomplete sentence. This was amended.
4. Using recent references where possible. Additional, more recent references have been cited.
5. Confirming the method used and correct citation for flavonoid determination. Another reference was reported, however, that reference describes methods based on chromatography (thin layer and liquid), but not gravimetric. The year and edition also appear to be incorrect, since the first edition is from 1984 (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-009-5570-7) unless I am mistaking this reference for a similar one, please confirm. Regardless of the reference cited, 80 % methanol will extract flavonoids, but it will also extract other alcohol-soluble substances, thus, a gravimetric method will most likely overestimate the samples’ flavonoid content.
6. Specifying the method used to calculate SC50 and correlation analyses. These have now been specified.
7. Providing additional information regarding the data reported by Singh and your own findings. Additional data is now mentioned.
According to the aforementioned changes made by the authors, it is apparent that most suggested changes were adequately addressed. Confirming the reference in comment 5 is the only issue that persists, however, this does not warrant another round of revision. There are no additional comments or suggestions for the present version of the document.
Please provide a comprehensively revised version addressing the editorial comments and a detailed rebuttal letter.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: There are additional comments from R1 in their attached PDF #]
Figures are relevant, high quality, and well
labelled & described.
Methods described with sufficient detail &
information to replicate.
Impact and novelty not assessed.
Meaningful replication encouraged, where
rationale & benefit to literature are clearly
stated.
Overall, the authors have provided a regular, nutrient- and antioxidant-rich manuscript that, however, is in need of minor improvements before it could be considered for publication.
Manuscript titled “Comparative analysis of antioxidant content and nutrient composition in three dragon fruit cultivars” reports a characterization of three different dragon fruit cultivars. There are some comments and suggestions for the authors:
1. In line 77, the phrase “Red-fleshed dragon fruit's high Fe concentration raises hemoglobin levels” is misleading. It appears that your intention is to correlate iron intake with proper hemoglobin levels, however, the sentence should be better expressed; please consider rephrasing.
2. In line 78, “…dietary fibre for diabetic individuals…”, it is unclear why would fiber be only for diabetic individuals; please consider rephrasing.
3. Line 262 mentions “white and yellow dragon fruit cultivars”. Fruits have been referred to by their scientific name until this point; please be consistent in how samples are named throughout the manuscript.
4. In line 407, the phrase “Conversely, the white and purple” is incomplete.
5. The manuscript cites various older papers. Please consider citing more recent ones whenever possible.
6. The method for flavonoid determination references the work of Close & McArthur, 2002, however, this paper is a review and does not contain any quantification method. Please confirm what technique was actually used and include the proper reference.
7. Line 303 mentions “SC50”, however, its definition or how it was calculated is not clearly stated in materials and methods, please add it. Same comment for correlation analysis in line 320.
8. Line 368 states that “The findings of this investigation align with those of Singh et al.”. Please elaborate on how your results are similar.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.