USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
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
