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.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on August 30th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 13th, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 4th, 2021 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 10th, 2021.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Nov 10, 2021 · Academic Editor


Thanks for making all the necessary changes.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Oct 13, 2021 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please address the comments from the reviewers.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial 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: #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Although the authors have tried to present an important topic, there are certain limitations in the study and these need to be improved significantly for submitting in such a reputable journal.

The introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections are too much thin for an original article. Overall, the smaller population size limits the scope of the manuscript to a wider number of readers.

Experimental design

As I have mentioned that 76 is a smaller number, I would suggest later on to circulate the survey to other Finnish universities also to make a multicenter data presentation. Even in 76 persons, the male-female ratio is not equal. The ethical committee's study approval number has to be mentioned in the methods section. This original primary research doesn't fall within Aims and Scope of the journal.

Validity of the findings

The lower number of participants arise the question of the statistical significance of the study findings and I would recommend increasing the number of participants. It would give a heterogeneous distribution of the participants, even some international students' experience would strengthen the study if available. As I mentioned the limited results and discussion section must be improved. In the later versions please include a section on "Strengths and limitations" of the study.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

1. Title of the article is improper as it is mentioned university pre-graduate as target population. Rather it should be mentioned medical students, as there are significance difference between general university pre-graduate and medical students in terms of stress, workload and health awareness level.

2. Your introduction needs more details. At lines 45-63 different studies among students is reported regarding alcohol consumption and physical activity during COVID-19 pandemic, however, other relevant studies among medical students should be reported here additionally.

Experimental design

1. In the line 67, it is mentioned that this study was a cross-sectional cohort study. It is only a cross-sectional online survey which has to be mentioned instead.

2. Background information( at lines 86-91) which were collected during study have not been reflected in the results related to main outcome variables(alcohol consumption and physical activity).

3. Table-1 lacks the data regarding association between alcohol consumption, physical activity and men and single living arrangements.

Validity of the findings

1. No data regarding social contacts had been collected in this study, therefore, it is improper to mention in the conclusion (line 156-157) that alcohol consumption is reduced due to reduced social contacts.

2. This study lacks the data which may confound the alcohol consumption and physical activities before and during COVID-19 pandemic.

Additional comments

No comment

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.