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.
Congratulations, your manuscript was accepted. Please, follow all steps until the publication. PeerJ appreciates that you have considered our scientific publication and that you have trusted our review process.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
Dear Authors. Please, note all suggestions and revise or respond accordingly. Regards.
1. In the abstract “… abnormally lower scores in females (ISQ 5.00±5.0, p<0.000).” I suppose it should be “p<0.001”?
2. In the Statistical Analysis section “The Shapiro-Wilk test, which would reveal a non-normal distribution, was conducted to check normality for each variable.” Did you apply any adjustment, e.g., transformation, if the normality assumption didn’t hold?
1. In the Material and Methods section, it first stated that “… the required sample size was estimated to be 240.” but later “Of 700 medical students invited, 240 agreed to participate, …” how exactly was the sample size determined? Please clarify.
2. Also in the Material and Methods section “The Immune Status Questionnaire (ISQ) was used to evaluate the participant’s immune status during the last year” Did the questionnaire measure ISQ score of last year but other aspects of current status? If so, how to assure a fair comparison? Please clarify.
No comment.
First of all, I think the introduction is to long, it maybe shorter? I suggest the author goes right to the problem about wost behavior as a western food. Talk slightly on immune metabolism , leave hard explanations to discuss section. I suggest 1 1/2 page to introduction.
Questionnaries made by Google form has a big bias because the Respondent can use the same formulary many times. I suggest the author mention on text that configuration task to block was actived avoid the same voluntary apply the formulary once again.
The author used only one experimental group it is a weak point of study. A control group is necessary to turn it a experimental study
The author talks about fatty food consumption but didn't informed what kind of instrument used to obtain this information, Please show it on method section
The finding's validity was committed because it is impossible to affirm the finding without a control group
I encourage author to review the suggests, The medical team have a mission to care but they don't care themselves. So the findings must be showed, and political proccedures must be applyed by university to care the student's health
This is interesting and well-written article. Research background and motivation were clearly stated. The data collection approach and statistical analysis were used appropriately and the study results were described clearly in the manuscript. Two specific questions below.
Line 207-210. The study found striking results that a proportion of participants who reported normal general heath and normal immune health were graded blow 6 at ISQ score. Maybe I missed it, but I did not see the authors discussed this striking results sufficiently in the article. Please elaborate.
For the linear stepwise regression model, it’s not clear how the authors built the model. Based on table 5, it seems the authors used forward selection? Please provide more details how the regression model was built and validated and how the variable selection was performed.
See comments above
See comments above
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.