Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on March 26th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on May 18th, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on June 29th, 2021 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on August 6th, 2021 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 6th, 2021.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Aug 6, 2021 · Academic Editor

Accept

Authors have addressed reviewer's comments.

Version 0.2

· Jul 30, 2021 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Sample size is a limitation of the study, which reduces its novelty. Include as a limitation of the study the predisposition to type 2 error of the data.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

See below

Experimental design

See below

Validity of the findings

See below

Additional comments

I would like to congratulate the authors for their efforts. As I mentioned before, I believe that the results are too obvious and have important limitations in the scientific novelty. In addition, due to the small sample size, I believe that most of their results are predisposed to type 2 error, and the only significant results are obvious (eg. decrease in physical activity, changes in expenses, etc.).

Once again, I recommend the authors consider present their results as a letter to the editor.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· May 18, 2021 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The survey need to be described very well in order to facilitate repeatability. It is mandatory to indicate if the survey was validated or not and whether it was used before, include appropriate references for this.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.  It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter.  Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

See below

Experimental design

See below

Validity of the findings

See below

Additional comments

The authors aimed to describe some changes (before/during the COVID-19 outbreak) among pharmacy and medical students. I would like to congratulate the authors for their effort. However, I believe that the research does not apply for an original manuscript submission, mainly due to its lack of novelty.
The authors present results that are expected and have already been described in previous literature. I do not consider that they add more to the current evidence.
I recommend the authors to consider present their results as a letter to the editor.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Well done on a timely and relevant article. In addition, the manuscript is clearly written in professional, unambiguous language.
Keywords are missing from the abstract.

Experimental design

It would be interesting to know how lockdown due to COVID19 has influenced student's marks (results), and if it really has an impact on their university performance.
More detail is needed on the survey, including a reference. Was it validated?

Validity of the findings

It cannot be concluded that there have been no changes in food behaviour or energy intake as it is done in the discussion. Maybe It could be worth noting other international studies (e. g. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12061807) that inform about there have been relevant changes of food intake among young people as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The open question was answered by 9 students, 10%, very few to get a conclusion.

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.