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!
I have reviewed all the comments from you and the reviewers, and have deemed ti acceptable for publication in PeerJ.
Thank you for your submission.
1. The manuscript is well-written and easy to understand. The background information is written in detail.
1. The modifications of the statistical analysis part based on previous review feedback are clear.
No comment
The manuscript has undergone significant improvement. However, there are still some places that need revision before a final decision can be made. Please consider the feedback provided by Reviewer 1 when revising the manuscript.
1. The manuscript is well-written and the structure of this manuscript is better than the previous version, the background is more apparent.
1. The data is well collected and described in detail.
2. The statistical analysis section is clearer and the results are well discussed
1. The model-building and selection procedure should be explained. Also, the model interpretation should be included
I read your manuscript and the review reports from two expert reviewers. I also think this manuscript includes interesting data. Both reviewers are asking you for significant changes to the manuscript. I agree with both reviewers' opinions. I request the current revisions as noted by 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. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
1. The manuscript is well-written but also comes along with minor grammatical errors in some sentences.
2. The background information is written in detail.
3. Acronyms that appear for the first time should come along with the full description.
4. The experiment results should have a better layout that is easier for readers, concise figures and tables are highly recommended to demonstrate the result
5. All the literature references in this paper lack numbering which causes difficulties in tracking.
1. The primary research aim and data collection are clearly defined and described.
2. The statistical analysis part needs more details, for instance, in section 2.6 multiple statistical methods Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness-of-Fit Test, chi-square test and multinomial logistic regression are mentioned and used. It would be great if the author is able to talk a little bit about this method and why this method.
1. Although the authors made enough effort in the background introduction and storytelling, the impact on the research is limited. As the authors mentioned in the paper, sex workers basically have financial difficulties so it’s not very surprising they are malnutrition.
2. Again, the statistical method detail is insufficient, the methodology should be clarified as well.
3. Table 1 - table 5 only demonstrates sex workers’ personal living habits and corresponding statistical analysis, figure 1 shows the percentage among the different dietary groups. My concern is despite other factors, diet plays an important role in nutrition status, so it’s worth including an analysis here.
The topic of the article is interesting but I had difficulties reading it because of the style of writing. The introduction contained too many references and was in my view not a good overview of the main discussions in the field. In addition, the English was not always perfect which affected the readability of the paper. Last but not least the paper is mainly based on quantitative research and I am not able to assess the validity of it. I am a qualitative researcher and it was very hard for me to read and understand the statistical analysis. The authors do give sufficient background and context although I am not sure it will be clear for people that do not know the Ethiopian context.
Unfortunately I am unable to assess this because the paper is mainly of a quantitative nature. Yet, I do think the problem is well defined but the way in which the research has been done and the validity of the findings cannot be assessed by me.
No comment because I am unable to assess the findings
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.