Article Critique Assignment FNDH 701 – Due Date: Tuesday November 28, 2023 ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES For this assignment, you all will be required to work in groups and create an article critique. There will be 4 students in each group (5 students in the last 2 groups), please see your group and your assigned article below. I have provided an example article with guidelines as well as examples of good and bad critiques. The objective of the assignment is for you all to become more familiar with scientific papers, their setup, getting the necessary information, and being critical about the information available in peer-reviewed articles, all while you work as a group. You will only need to upload the assignment in Canvas ONE time by one of your team members. Of the 30 points this assignment is worth, 10 points will come from the average of your own evaluation by your teammates (form uploaded as well). Please complete the evaluation sheet assigning scores for each of your team members and upload it as well by the deadline. You will receive 2 bonus points if you upload the evaluation sheet by the deadline. No points will be awarded after the deadline. This information is confidential, I will be the only one looking at these forms. I expect you to be thorough and honest in your reviews. Feel free to use any type of communication tools to get this
assignment completed: emails, discussion boards, zoom conference etc. Contact me if you have any questions. Good luck! Dr. Talavera A PRIMER TO CRITIQUING SCIENTIFIC PAPERS Follow the guidelines from this attached article. Use the Ashford Title Page format. Other things to keep in mind: COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHORS – What is the major contribution of the paper? What are its major strengths and weaknesses? Please include both general and specific comments bearing on these questions and emphasize your most significant points. GENERAL: 1. Importance and interest to SENSORY SCIENTISTS 2. Scientific soundness 3. Originality 4. Organization and clarity 5. Cohesiveness of argument 6. Degree to which conclusions are supported by the data 7. Length relative to the number of new ideas and information 8. Conciseness and writing style SPECIFIC: Support your general comments with specific evidence. 1. Presentation Does the paper tell a cohesive story? Is it a tightly reasoned argument evident throughout the paper? Where does the paper wander from this argument? Do the title, abstract, key words, introduction, and conclusions accurately and consistently reflect the major point(s) of the paper? Is the writing concise, easy to follow, interesting? 2. Length What portions of the paper should be expanded, condensed, combined, or deleted? 3. Methods Are they appropriate and current? Are they described clearly enough so that someone else could repeat the work? 4. Data presentation When results are stated in the text of the paper, can you easily verify them by examining tables and figures? Are all tables and figures clearly labeled, well planned, too complex, or unnecessary? 5. Statistical design and analyses Are they appropriate, and correct? Can the reader readily discern which measurements or observations are independent of which other measurements or observations? Are replicates correctly identified? Are significance statements justified? 6. Errors Point out any errors in technique, fact, calculation, interpretation, or style. 7. Citations Are all (and only) pertinent references cited? Do they provide for all assertions of fact not supported by the article itself? FAIRNESS and OBJECTIVITY — If the research reported in this paper is flawed, criticize the science, not the scientist. Harsh words in a review will cause the reader to doubt your objectivity; as a result, your criticism will be rejected, even if they are correct! Comments directed to the author should convince the author that: 1. You have read the entire paper carefully 2. Your criticisms are objective and correct, are not merely differences of opinion, and are intended to help the author improve his or her paper, and 3. You are qualified to provide an expert opinion about the research reported in this paper. If you fail to win the author’s respect and appreciation, your efforts will have been wasted. See the examples of good critiques and bad critiques for the article below: Yogurt Carbonation Example Example 1 – A good critique Journal Article Wright, AO, Ogden, LV, Eggett, DL. 2003. Determination of Carbonation Threshold in Yogurt. J Food Sci 68 (1): 378-81. Overall, this article is of importance to both sensory scientists and the industry because thresholds are critical in setting limits in food applications. The main objective of this study was to determine a group mean detection threshold of carbonation in Swissstyle yogurt for a defined demographic group being college-aged students. This article flowed logically and used references to support the results. In this paper, I will discuss both strengths and weaknesses according to the organization of the article beginning with the title and abstract. The title and abstract were both very concise and brief. The abstract stated the ranges of carbonation evaluated, the panel selected, methods used, and final results. The keywords used were precise and accurate. I found that the abstract did not state a clear objective or indicate why this research was of importance. I also believe that the abstract misrepresented the experiments sampling method. It states that 72 repetitions were completed, and each panelist received 42 3-AFC presentations. Upon analyzing this article, I found that six replications or sessions were completed with seven samples per session by 12 panelists, leading to a total of 72 sample tests, 42 3-AFC presentations per panelist, and an overall total of 504 presentations. When critiquing the introduction, I found that the author did a great job of presenting both the advantages and disadvantages of using carbonation in dairy products. They cited carbonation research that has been conducted on dairy products and why thresholds are of importance. The authors ended this section by stating a clear, strong objective and how this research could be applied to the industry. The author could have been expanded this section by giving a brief explanation of the 3-AFC procedure including its definition, how it used as a test for the measurement of sensory thresholds, and how the procedure is conducted. In the materials and methods section, I found that the authors became very detailed, and this section could have been shortened. Under preparation of yogurt, I found that the author used both kg and g instead of being uniform and consistent by using one unit of measurement. Next, the author states ‘two portions’ which made me believe two equal portions or 50/50. However, it then states that the portions were divided into 30/70 but did not indicate how this was determined. Within this same paragraph, it states that all mixtures were prepared and stored in a cooler. Therefore, it is assumed that only one batch of mixtures were prepared for all tests. The definition of a replication states that new preparation or batches are made from scratch for each session. In this case, I believe the replications were merely sub-samples. The research was to be conducted according to the ASTM method E1432 procedure that recommended 6 to 7 concentration levels by factors of 2 to 4. However, the researcher set their own factor of 1.66 for 8 concentrations. Therefore, the researchers were not following the method recommendations. Regarding factors and concentrations, I found that the researchers did not use consistent decimals and that there were errors in the calculation of factors for percentage saturated yogurt blended with stock. The concentrations should have been 0%, 2.8%, 4.7%, 7.7%, 12.8%, 21.3%, 35.3%, 58.6%,and 97.8% (100%). The bolded percentages represented the calculations I found to be different. There were to be 8 concentrations with controls being 0% and 100%. When analyzing the sample sets, only 7 concentrations were used (2.8% – 58.6%). The article states that degree Brix was determined from 79 samples; however, I do not understand where the 79 samples that were tested came from. The author did a good job explaining the carbon dioxide determination by infrared method and the how the equation was used to convert percent CO2 headspace gas to ppm CO2. The researchers presented each panelist with 42 3AFC presentations which was above the recommended 20 – 40 3-AFC presentations per individual, improving statistical data. To eliminate biased results, the researchers used red lighting, paper ballots, and tapped the sample cups to create an uniform appearance I believe the authors could have expanded the results and discussion section of this paper. Research papers should focus their time on the results and interpretation of these results. However, this article focused its detailed description on the materials and methods rather than on results. In Table 1, I found that it included data from 13 panelists rather than 12; therefore, results would be skewed based on one more entry of data. I believe that the author did not explain Table 1, Figure 2, or Figure 3 so that results were clearly understood. I also think the author could have expanded on the results of the computer program through graphs or charts. The conclusion was precise and summarized the results from the completed research. The article indicates that a weakness of the study was that results may not apply to the general population; however, I believe the researcher were accurate in selection of panelist because testing was conducted on healthy 18-24 years old subjects, following the guidelines in having participants that are healthy 20-year-olds to best generalize population values. **************************************************************************************************** Example 2 – Another good critique ARTICLE CRITIQUE Wright AO, Ogden LV and Egget DL. 2003. Determination of carbonation threshold in yogurt. Journal of Food Science 68. Determination of Carbonation threshold in Yogurt is a research article written by A.O. Wright, L.V. Ogden and D.L. Egget. It is taken from the Journal of Food Science, volume 68, number 1, published in 2003. The objective of this article, and of the sensory analysis led for this research, is to determine the mean carbonation threshold in a strawberry flavored yogurt by college-aged students. The knowledge of such a threshold could be of considerable importance for dairy industries. The article is divided in four parts as it is common in research articles: an introduction defining the purpose of the study, the materials and methods carried out to fulfill this goal, the results and discussion, and lastly the conclusion. In the introduction, the authors cite different surveys to explain the importance of carbonation in food products, and also describe what the bad effects of a high carbonation concentration could be. The objective of the survey is therefore very well explained, giving information on the methods, panelists, and consequences of the determination of the threshold at a larger scale: the dairy industry. However, we can underline the fact that neither in the title nor in the introduction, do the authors explain the type of yogurt used in the analysis. They state it is a Swiss-style yogurt, but never say that it is a strawberry flavored yogurt. The materials and methods are described in three distinct parts. The preparation of the yogurt is highly detailed, with the quantities, percentages, temperatures, and ph. I am not sure it should be overemphasized as such. Moreover, the article states that a factor of 1.66 was used between levels for the concentrations, but the numbers given for the proportion of saturated yogurts and stock are not precise. In fact, the numbers were not corrected in the same way as far as the decimals are concerned: sometimes it was corrected on the upper level, and other times on the lower one. For example, 2.8*1.66=4.65, and was corrected to 4.7, whereas 7.7*1.66=12.78 corrected to 12.9. This is not scientific, although in the end the difference may not be very significant. Another paragraph is dedicated to the physical proprieties if the samples to show that they had the same content of total solids and Brix degree. This is important for the scientific aspect of the survey. The method of determination of the CO 2 level is overdeveloped to my sense, stating the conversion equation between percentages and ppm, but also the machines used. It is of first importance because carbonation is the objective of the survey, and it could help the industrials to duplicate the methods used, but I am not sure it should be detailed as such. The sensory method and panel are very well described, giving details about the prerequisites, selection process and training of the panelists, and enhancing the test conditions (temperatures, minimization of bias, samples characteristics). However, the authors do not explain why they have chosen a triangle test for their survey and not another discrimination test; we can guess it is because it is the more sensitive test of the three. Table one gives us the threshold per panelists. We can deplore that once again the numbers are not corrected on the same basis: 10 2.48467=306.7 and was corrected to 305, and 102.5809=181.2 corrected to 181. Moreover, the group threshold is correct as far as the log10 estimate is concerned, but its conversion to ppm (party per millions) is wrong: 102.4307=269.6. This is very surprising as this number is the main objective of the research. Lastly, the mean threshold ppm CO2 would be 277 given the ppm results of the thirteen panelists. The interpretation of the results is therefore not accurate. Nevertheless, because the threshold determination depends on a large number of factors as the authors point out, a difference of about 10ppm is perhaps insignificant. However, this determination was the main purpose of the study, so we can believe that all the calculus should be doublechecked to find the right threshold. Another problem in the results is that it is not stated at which percentage of maximum proportion of correct judgments the threshold was determined. Given figure two, we can calculate that the threshold was taken for 65% of maximum proportion of correct judgments. The conclusion is short but precise, objective and clear. It gives the mean threshold found as well as a 95% level of confidence limit range; neither of numbers seems to be accurate given the errors in the calculations. It then broadens the conclusion of the research to the industrial level, reminding that this analysis was only carried out on a specific population category. In conclusion, I can say that this article may have a very important impact on the dairy industry and could lead to the development of new carbonated yogurts. However, the calculations seem to have errors and should be double-checked in order to find the exact threshold. For the moment I don’t think this research article is accurate and usable. The good point however about this article is the complete introduction which gives a lot of information to support the goal of the article. Another advantage is the detailed procedures given, which could enable dairy industrials to reproduce such products and experiments. **************************************************************************************************** Example 3 – A bad critique, this is what you should not do Title of Paper: Determination of Carbonation Threshold in Yogurt, Journal of Food Science – Vol. 68, Nr. 1, 2003 There are many drawbacks in this paper that render it less acceptable by Food Scientists. The first mistake is that it is not mentioned anywhere in this paper when it was submitted and the date when it was accepted in revised form. This is crucial if someone wants to know whether the paper was revised or not. The second misleading representation is that this article is showing the countries and universities of the authors at the end of the paper. Many people are used to look for this kind of information below the names of the author and before the Abstract. In materials and methods, I believe that it was a big mistake to provide with only one recipe for yogurt with specific percentages without mentioning if any additions of acids or sweetness are going to affect the perception and threshold of carbonation or not. Most of the companies are not going to stick to the same recipe for Swiss-style yogurt. Nothing is mentioned about variations of flavors, sweetness, viscosity, and acidity to the perceived CO2 detection. Another misleading representation is to mention 3-AFC without even explaining what each of the letter signifies. This article should be addressed to people having interest in detection of CO2 threshold, and these people might have no prior knowledge of some basic terms in Sensory Analysis. At least, the letters should be explained on the bottom margin. Also, as they inferred in the conclusion, the sample doesn’t at all represent the population since people tested are young. Every year, each one of us loses 1% of his taste. This means that another study must be conducted to assess the detection threshold for older people. The conclusion of this article might even seem inaccurate. There is a wide number of detection thresholds taken from the panel with probably a high range of standard deviation. In this case, it is not sure how much can the Mean of detection threshold be significant with a wide range of data to infer from the results that all Swiss-type yogurt have the detection threshold of 227ppm. With all these drawbacks, the article has however some logical presentation. It is comprehensible how materials and methods were conducted, and the sources used to generate the detection threshold are from ASTM, which is supposed to be a credible source to conduct threshold detection. The literature and the sources of information were not investigated in this critique due of a lack of time. We don’t know whether the authors were able to infer correctly the conclusions of each research from different journals already stated. Finally, and contrary to their conclusion, we can say that the research is not relevant for any yogurt company willing to develop carbonated products although the article follows a logical structure. Groups assignments are the following: Article 1. Biases in paired preference tests: Cross-cultural comparison of Japanese and American consumers Group 1 1 2 3 4 Lindsey Decker Heather Trainor Alex Gavrilos Sara Schlickau Article 2. Effects of water types and roasting points on consumer liking and emotional responses toward coffee Group 2 1 2 3 4 Kayla Erman Doris Agyei Lindsey Gercken Lok Shrestha Julianna Johnson Bony Topiwala Alejandra Guillenvallejo Jasmine Wallace Hailey Karroum Rosanna Maffei Madison Haines Jessica Wood Karen Magana Kostas Batziakas Susanna Ko Daniel Bauer kmagana@ksu.edu kbatziakas@ksu.edu susannak@ksu.edu danielbauer@ksu.edu Article 6. Salt reduction in potato chips using microparticulated salt and spices: A sensory study with consumers Group 6 1 2 3 4 hkarroum@ksu.edu rmaffei@ksu.edu mh97@ksu.edu jmwood222@ksu.edu Article 5. Developing a Lexicon for Descriptive Analysis of Soymilks Group 5 1 2 3 4 juliannaj99@ksu.edu bony@ksu.edu guillenv@ksu.edu jasminewallace@ksu.edu Article 4. Influence of information received by the consumer on the sensory perception of processed orange juice Group 4 1 2 3 4 erman@ksu.edu dagyei@ksu.edu lgercken@ksu.edu lokshrestha@ksu.edu Article 3. Lexicon Development, Consumer Acceptance, and Drivers of Liking of Quinoa Varieties Group 3 1 2 3 4 lkdecker@ksu.edu htrainor2014@ksu.edu alexgavrilos@ksu.edu schlickaus@ksu.edu Ashton Mcginn Bryce Dailey Constance Macri Benjamin Kowalyshen ashtonmcginn@ksu.edu bdailey@ksu.edu cmacri@ksu.edu kowalyshenb@ksu.edu Article 7. A sensory lexicon to characterize the quality of fresh and preserved peppers Group 7 1 2 3 4 Amelia Bresette Eugenia Decker Amrita Raj Mann Adam Price Article 8. Development of a Lexicon for Caviar and Its Usefulness for Determining Consumer Preference Group 8 1 2 3 4 5 Julia Rivera Peggy Elefant Alexander Nguyen Vincent Shelhamer Megan Turner julia01@ksu.edu peggyelefant@ksu.edu nguyenvmtalex@ksu.edu vts@ksu.edu meganturner@ksu.edu Article 9. Consumer Attitudes and Preferences for Fresh Market Tomatoes Group 9 1 2 3 4 5 amelia0225@ksu.edu eugeniad@ksu.edu arkmann@ksu.edu adprice@ksu.edu Emily Cummings Bridget Frick Jonathan Ocampo Cameron Fiorenza Intisar Abdel-Alim emilyferrari64@ksu.edu bridge9@ksu.edu jonaocampo@ksu.edu cmfiorenza@ksu.edu iabdelalim@ksu.edu Lexicon Development, Consumer Acceptance, and Drivers of Liking of Quinoa Varieties Abstract: Quinoa is becoming increasingly popular, with an expanding number of commercially available varieties. To compare the sensory properties of these quinoa varieties, a common sensory lexicon needs to be developed. Thus, the objective of this study was to develop a lexicon of cooked quinoa and examine consumer acceptance of diverse varieties. A trained panel (n = 9) developed aroma, taste/flavor, texture, and color descriptors to describe the sensory properties of 21 quinoa varieties. In addition, texture of the cooked quinoa was determined using a texture analyzer. Results indicated that the developed lexicon could distinguish among these quinoa varieties, showing significant differences in aromas, taste/flavors, and texture attributes. Specifically, quinoa variety effects were observed for the aromas of caramel, nutty, buttery, grassy, earthy, and woody; taste/flavor of sweet, bitter, grain-like, nutty, earthy, and toasty; and firm, cohesive, pasty, adhesive, crunchy, chewy, astringent, and moist textures. Three varieties, “QQ74,” “Linares,” and “CO407D,” exhibited an adhesive texture that has not been described in other commercialized quinoa. Subsequent consumer evaluation (n = 100) on 6 selected samples found that the “Commercial Red” sample was the most accepted overall whereas the least accepted was the field variety “QQ74.” For all consumers, overall acceptance of quinoa was driven by higher intensities of grassy aroma, and firm and crunchy texture. Segmentation of the consumers into 4 groups was explored and showed that consumers varied in their acceptance of specific attributes, particularly texture. From the present study, the quinoa lexicon and key drivers of consumer acceptance can be utilized in the industry to evaluate quinoa varieties, product quality and processing procedures. Keywords: consumer acceptance, lexicon, sensory evaluation, quinoa Practical Application: The lexicon of cooked quinoa can be used by breeders to screen quinoa varieties. This lexicon will also be useful in the food industry to evaluate the sensory properties of quinoa from multiple farms, harvest years, and processing procedures, with the potential of directing quinoa toward different applications based on its properties. The consumer acceptance results, along with the specific consumer segments that were identified, will allow for targeted marketing of quinoa. Introduction Quinoa is classified as a pseudocereal, like amaranth and buckwheat. With its high protein content and balanced essential amino acid profile, quinoa is becoming popular worldwide. Currently, export levels exceed USD70 million in Bolivia and USD25 million in Peru (Furche and others 2015). In California, the retail price of quinoa increased from $9/kg in 2013 to $13 to $20/kg in 2015 (Nuñez de Arco 2015). Quinoa has been incorporated into numerous products including bread, cookies, pasta, cakes, and chocolates (Pop and others 2014; Alencar and others 2015; Casas Moreno and others 2015; Wang and others 2015). Some of these products are gluten-free foods, thus targeting the gluten-sensitive market segment (Wang and others 2015). The rising popularity of quinoa inspired researchers in the United States to breed varieties that are compatible with local weather, photoperiod, and soil conditions, which greatly differ from quinoa’s original land, the Andean mountain region. Since 2010, Washington State Univ. has been breeding and evaluating JFDS-2016-1630 Submitted 10/1/2016, Accepted 2/2/2017. Authors Wu and Ross are with School of Food Science, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164, U.S.A. Author Morris is with USDA-ARS Western Wheat Quality Laboratory, E202 Food Quality Building, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164, U.S.A. Author Murphy is with Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164, U.S.A. Direct inquiries to author Ross (E-mail: cfross@wsu.edu). R C 2017 Institute of Food Technologists doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.13677 Further reproduction without permission is prohibited quinoa germplasm adapted to the Pacific Northwest region of the U.S. Among currently grown quinoa varieties, agronomic attributes of interest include high yield, consistent performance over years, and tolerance to drought, salinity, heat, preharvest sprouting, and diseases (Peterson and Murphy 2015). However, beyond agronomic attributes, the sensory profiles of these quinoa varieties are also important to assist in breeding decisions, as well as screening genotypes/cultivars for various food applications. In order to provide a complete descriptive profile of the cooked quinoa, a trained sensory evaluation is needed, along with the development of a complete lexicon of the sensory attributes of importance. Currently, no quinoa lexicon is available and descriptions of quinoa sensory properties are limited. From published research, attributes describing quinoa taste have been limited to bitter, sweet, earthy, and nutty (Koziol 1991; Lorenz and Coulter 1991; Repo-Carrasco and others 2003; Stikic and others 2012; Föste and others 2014), with texture attributes of cooked quinoa described as creamy, smooth, and crunchy (Abugoch 2009). Thus, to address the lack of a quinoa lexicon, one objective of this study was to develop a lexicon describing the sensory properties of quinoa. Beyond developing a lexicon to describe quinoa, consumer preference of the different quinoa varieties is also of great interest. Most previous sensory studies on quinoa focused on the acceptance of quinoa-containing products, whereas consumer acceptance on Vol. 82, Nr. 4, 2017 r Journal of Food Science 993 Sensory & Food Quality Geyang Wu, Carolyn F. Ross, Craig F. Morris, and Kevin M. Murphy Sensory evaluation of cooked quinoa . . . Sensory & Food Quality the plain cooked grain of quinoa varieties has not been studied. Because of the lack of cooked quinoa studies performed with consumers, rice may be considered as a model to study quinoa because of the similar cooking process. Tomlins and others (2005) found consumer preference of rice was driven by the appearance attributes of uniform, clean, bright, and translucent, with consumers not liking the brown color of cooked rice or unshelled paddy in raw rice. In another study, Suwannaporn and others (2008) found that consumer acceptance of rice products was significantly influenced by convenience, grain variety, and tradition/naturalness. This study, presenting a quinoa lexicon along with consumer acceptance of different quinoa varieties, provides critical information for both the breeding programs and food industry researchers. Given the predicted importance of texture in consumer acceptance of quinoa, in this study, the Texture Analyzer (TA-XT2i) was also used to evaluate the parameters of hardness, adhesiveness, cohesiveness, and chewiness of quinoa samples. This lexicon describing the sensory attributes of cooked quinoa will be a useful tool to evaluate varieties, compare samples of quinoa grown across different environments and years, and cleaned or processed using different procedures. Finally, the sensory attributes driving consumer preference can be utilized to evaluate optimal quinoa quality and target different consumers based on preference. Materials and Methods Quinoa samples This study included 21 quinoa samples harvested in 2014, of which 16 varieties were from Finnriver Organic Farm (Chimacum, Wash., U.S.A.) and 5 were commercial samples from Bolivia and Peru (Table 1). Quinoa preparation Following harvest, the samples from Finnriver Farm were cleaned in a Clipper Office Tester (Seedburo, Des Plainies, Ill., U.S.A.) to separate mixed weed seeds and threshed materials. Subsequently, the samples were soaked for 30 min, rubbed manually under running water, and dried at 43 °C until the moisture reached
Purchase answer to see full attachment
