Invited review Quick and dirty but still pretty good: a review of new descriptive methods in food science

By Dominique Valentin, Sylvie Chollet. 2012

356 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Food Science, Nutrition and Dietetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0bb236d159987e22fe65acb5ce0eb1c68d63e33e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Andrew Kirby
2. R. Deliza

In Food Science

1. A. Cruz
2. Anna M. Crump
3. Lukas Danner
4. Andrew Kirby
5. J. A. Faria
6. J. Gambetta
7. R. Cadena
8. T. Johnson

In Nutrition and Dietetics

1. A. Cruz
2. Anna M. Crump
3. Lukas Danner
4. Andrew Kirby
5. J. A. Faria
6. J. Gambetta
7. T. Johnson
8. S. Bastian

Citations in the corpus

• Exploratory Bibliometrics: Using VOSviewer as a Preliminary Research Tool (2023, background): “In some practical contexts, these are known as quick-and-dirty methods, which can be followed by more sophisticated protocols if the results are affirmative [6].”
• Consumer perception of probiotic yogurt: Performance of check all that apply (CATA), projective mapping, sorting and intensity scale (2013, background): “cently, two excellent reviews have become available (Valentin et al., 2012; Varela & Ares, 2012).”
• Comparison of Rate-All-That-Apply and Descriptive Analysis for the Sensory Profiling of Wine (2018, methodology): “…of methods has been proposed as suitable for naive consumers to profile a variety of products, and these methods include Napping, Free Choice Profiling, Flash Profiling, Check-All-That-Apply (CATA), and Rate-All-That-Apply (RATA) (Moussaoui and Varela 2010, Valentin et al. 2012, Delarue 2015).”