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 July 27th, 2023 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 2nd, 2023.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 24th, 2023 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on December 6th, 2023.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Dec 6, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

Having thoroughly examined the revised manuscript, I am very convinced that it is now acceptable for publication. Thank you authors for finding PeerJ your journal of choice, and look forward to your future scholarly contributions.

·

Basic reporting

I would like to express my appreciation for the revisions made by the authors in response to the comments. After careful review, I am pleased to recommend the acceptance of the manuscript.

Experimental design

None.

Validity of the findings

None.

Additional comments

None.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Oct 2, 2023 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please, authors kindly consider the comments raised by the reviewers to revise your work.

Kindly elaborate in detail in the manuscript, especially your responses to reviewers' comments.

**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.

**Language Note:** PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff

·

Basic reporting

The manuscript presents interesting and important results. A few issues, however, need to be addressed:
Abstract
- Please provide the study period, methods of the study, and keywords.
Introduction
- Provide the situation update of COVID-19 in the study area.
- Line 76-78, “The current study … (Figure 1).”, the current study focus on knowledge, COVID-19, diet, and physical activity that different from the abstract (Line 21-23) address the awareness and diet. Please explain more about the current study.
- Figure 1, please provide the source of information.
Materials and methods
Participants
- Provide the sampling methods and sample size.
Results
Medical history of participants
- The authors should not repeat information similar to presented table 2.
- Table 2, please provide the total number of all participants.
Discussion
- Divide them into several paragraphs and each paragraph should contain sub-headings, which can enhance readability.
- Provide the suggestions for future research.
- Provide a little more contextual information about national food safety emergency response plans.

Experimental design

No comment.

Validity of the findings

No comment.

Additional comments

No comment.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Relevance of the study:
This investigation is original, generating some scientific interest, given the role of diet to promote health and considering that covid-19 significantly altered many aspects of human daily fife, including access to food.
Title:
The title is misleading because it seems too generic, therefore I think it is important to mention that this a localized study. In this way, I recommend to modify the title
COVID-19 and diet: efforts towards balance diet for sustainable nutrition among Pakistanese university students
Or
COVID-19 and diet: efforts towards balance diet for sustainable nutrition among university students in Pakistan

Abstract:
The abstract is well organized with a brief explanation of the purpose of the study followed by a summary of the experimental methodology followed. Then the authors presented the most relevant conclusions observed, and the abstract ends with a concluding remark, highlighting the most relevant conclusion, as a “message to take home”.
Nevertheless, I think that the abstract is too generic and does not provide any concrete results. So the authors should add some quantitative results.
For example: Results showed that university students of medical discipline were slightly more aware of immunity enhancing foods and nutritive values of foods as compared to the engineering students. – you should add the values of percentages or scores of these two types, for example – x% against y% respectively.
Do this for the major findings.
Introduction:
The introduction helps to frame and contextualize the work. It presents some state of the art on a number of topics which are essential to the work that was carried out, and it serves as a justification for its purpose, also highlighted at the end of introduction.
Materials and methods:
The description of the methodologies applied to obtain and treat the data are presented very clearly. I do not have any recommendations.

Results:
The results are well presented, for example in Tables and Figures which are very elucidative and allow a good understanding of the data obtained.


Discussion and Limitations:
The discussion is very comprehensive, with relevant references cited along the text. The limitations part is also relevant to frame the results of the research.

Conclusions:
The conclusions part is also well formulated, presenting the most relevant findings of the work.

Experimental design

Valid and I have no comments

Validity of the findings

I confirm validity of the findings though the use of adequate techniques to treat the data

Additional comments

No additional comments

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.