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.
Thank you for your diligence in incorporating the feedback provided during the peer review process.
We are pleased to inform you that, based on our final assessment, the revisions adequately address the concerns raised. The article is now considered scientifically sound and meets the high standards for rigor and clarity required for publication.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic Editor is happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
Thank you for your prompt response and patience. The manuscript still needs some modifications before consideration for publication.
Please cite articles that have used the validated tool in multiple sociocultural settings to demonstrate its broader applicability.
In Lines 198–216, clarify whether the reported reliability scores refer to the data from the current study or from the original validation study. The text in Lines 262–265 also refers to reliability testing; please ensure consistency and clarity across these sections.
The Discussion section reiterates the Results. Please focus on two to three key themes from your findings and elaborate on their practical implications for policy, education, or clinical application.
The manuscript requires thorough English language and structural editing. An English editor should review it not only for grammar and syntax but also for sentence flow and structure. Some sentences are overly long or contain awkward verb constructions.
Table 7 is not needed, as it is complex to read and does not contribute meaningfully to addressing the research question or hypotheses. Please consider removing it.
Table 8 is missing key information about the overall regression model. It is not sufficient to list only the structural components; please include whether the model was statistically significant and indicate how much variance the independent variables explained (e.g., R², adjusted R², and model significance values).
**PeerJ Staff Note**: Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note**: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
Dear Authors,
The manuscript has been reviewed, and while the research addresses a highly relevant issue within an under-explored population, the current structure and methodological reporting require substantial restructuring and clarification. The overall narrative lacks cohesion, which significantly impacts the paper's theoretical rigor and flow. The paper, in its current form, is not suitable for a second review until these major structural and methodological issues have been resolved.
1. Introduction and Narrative Flow
The core issue in the Introduction is that it fails to tell a clear, logically progressive story that naturally leads to your study’s aims.
First, there is clear redundancy and citation overlap between lines 60–61 and 62–64, where the same points about skipping meals and increased fast food reliance are stated twice. You must combine both sentences into a single, succinct statement and merge all associated references (Alluhidan et al. 2022; Jalloun & Maneerattanasuporn 2021; Yun et al. 2018; Avram et al. 2025; Intorre et al. 2025) into that merged sentence.
Second, the pivotal statement in lines 80–81, "Research shows that students recognize health benefits but undervalue them compared to immediate barriers," is currently lacking a reference. This claim is crucial as it forms the theoretical foundation for investigating perceived benefits and barriers within your Health Belief Model (HBM) framework. It must be properly referenced and serve as a central theme in the introduction to expose the gap in the existing literature. What do we know about that from other cultures or previous studies.
Finally, the section spanning lines 86–136 suffers from a fragmented narrative. The concepts—barriers, knowledge, self-efficacy—are presented disjointedly. You must restructure the entire introduction into a cohesive argument:
i. Establish the general problem (unhealthy behaviors, long-term consequences, university environment).
ii. Detail the external barriers and introduce the internal conflict (recognized benefits vs. barriers) from the perspective of what we know from other studies and not just theoretical model. The current introduction is focused on theoretical explanation of the concepts used in the study which is directly inked to SCT and can be put in one paragraph. You need to elaborate on what we know about the topic from other cultures and previous studies.
iii. Conclude by explicitly justifying the study’s novelty by focusing on the unique cultural and environmental context of Southern Saudi Arabia (KSA).
2. Methodology and Rigor
The Methods section lacks the necessary level of detail to ensure reproducibility and confidence in the instruments used.
Regarding Questionnaire Instruments, it is currently unclear how your measures were developed. If the items for Self-Efficacy, Perceived Benefits, and Perceived Barriers were adapted from the Pawlak and Colby validated scale, you must explicitly state this. Furthermore, you need to elaborate on the original tool: its full name, original publication year, its psychometric properties, its history of validation across different cultures, and how it is typically employed in the literature. If any questions were author-generated, state this clearly.
The Recruitment procedure is also insufficiently detailed. You must provide a clear, step-by-step explanation of the recruitment strategy: How were students approached (e.g., email invitation, LMS announcement, in-person)? Detail the sampling method and, crucially, explain the procedure used for receiving responses that resulted in the exact target sample size (e.g., automated cut-off, systematic selection).
Finally, the Justification for Composite Variables is missing. You need to analytically justify the use of a single mean and standard deviation to represent complex constructs. You must justify the operationalization by either stating that this approach is consistent with the methodology used in the original validated tool (with appropriate citation) or, if not, provide the statistical justification for creating this composite variable (e.g., reporting a high Cronbach's alpha for the items in that subscale).
3. Discussion and Interpretation
The Discussion is currently unfocused, moving rapidly between findings without sufficient depth, synthesis, or practical application.
To improve the Focus and Cohesion, you need to identify two to three key results that form the main argument of your paper (e.g., the strongest predictor of dietary choice, the most significant cultural barrier).
The discussion must be restructured thematically around these key findings. For each key result, you must go beyond simply reporting the data by: a) Relating it rigorously to existing international literature (contrasting or supporting findings). b) Translating the finding into clear and concrete practical implications for university health promotion or concrete recommendations for future research directions, specifically within the cultural context of KSA.
We look forward to receiving a substantially revised manuscript that addresses these major concerns. Please provide a detailed response
The author has substantially expanded the rationale of the study, demonstrating critical thinking in identifying the research problem. In addition, the author has revised the study’s objective to explore the relationship between predictors and the outcome, in alignment with the chosen methodology. The manuscript now shows coherence across paragraphs and clearly highlights the novelty of the current study.
The methodology section has been revised in detail, and the measurement procedures are now presented more clearly.
Result
The presentation of statistical results using regression analysis needs to be written correctly.
Discussion
The author has employed appropriate theoretical frameworks to explain the study’s findings. Moreover, the discussion section is now better organized, thereby enhancing the overall quality of the study’s analysis.
Several typographical errors are still present and should be corrected through careful proofreading.
Thank you for resubmitting your manuscript. I appreciate your substantial revisions you have made; however, it still requires significant revision before it can be considered for publication.
The introduction is too long and lacks a broader context. Please shorten it and situate your research within the wider literature on eating habits among college students globally, not just within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). This will help highlight the novelty and contribution of your study.
The methods section is overly extensive and lacks conciseness. Please streamline this section, removing any unnecessary details while retaining all essential information for replication. Focus on clarity and brevity.
Demographic bias: the current sample is predominantly female, non-smokers, of normal weight, and from health-related colleges. Please explicitly address whether this demographic profile is representative of the general population of students at the university and in Saudi Arabia. This is a major limitation that significantly affects the study's generalizability and must be discussed thoroughly. Limitations section: The limitations section needs to be revised to include a detailed discussion of this demographic bias and its implications for the study's findings. You must explain how this bias may influence the results and the extent to which they can be generalized to a broader population.
The results section is currently too verbose and simply repeats information already presented in the tables. This creates a redundant and lengthy narrative. Please revise this section to be more concise and impactful. Focus on key findings: instead of narrating every data point, highlight the most important or statistically significant results from your analysis. Use the text to guide the reader through the main takeaways and trends, referring them to the appropriate tables for detailed data. Do not repeat the exact numerical values or all the information from the tables within the main text. The tables should stand on their own as a summary of the data, and the text should provide the context and interpretation.
I also have significant concerns regarding the clarity of your tables and the operationalization of your variables. Tables 6 and 7, which present findings related to "knowledge," "practices," and "barriers," are unclear. You must explicitly define how these abstract concepts were operationalized. The reader needs to understand exactly how you measured these variables. For instance, what specific questions or scales were used to quantify "knowledge"? What behaviors constituted "practices"? How were "barriers" categorized or measured? This crucial information should be detailed in the methods section to provide the necessary context for your results.
The abstract results section is length. Include the pertinent results. Include SD with means
September 5, 2025
-
-
-
The authors responded to all our comments and made the required adjustments.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
- Lack of Clear Structure: The flow between sections (global nutrition context → Saudi Arabia → university students → theory → gap) feels disorganized in places and not clear
1) General background on healthy eating and its benefits
2) The specific context of Saudi university students
- How about nutritional status in Saudi university students
- A gap in knowledge and insufficient understanding of the issues concerning students at King Khalid University necessitate the investigation within this specific population.
- Why? Self-efficacy is related to behavior change in the context of nutrition. Tie this theory to the research aim.
- BMI: was calculated by the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, categorizing participants as underweight (<18.5), average weight (18.5 - 24.9), overweight (25.0-29.9), or obesity (>30), this cutoff points may be inappropriate because author will follow BMI as per Asia -Pacific Guidelines
- Inclusion criteria: Why does the author not emphasize nutritional status, even though it affects the students' perception?
- The questionnaire:
1) Who developed the scale?
2) Did the authors use the scale developed in other countries or their own? This needs to be explained clearly. If developed by others, it needs to be cited and explained.
- Part Knowledge:
1. How did you come up with this scale?
2. Who developed the scale?
3. How often was this scale used in research studies?
- The regression analysis includes many variables, but the rationale for including them is not clearly explained.
- N= 385 will replace n = 385
- The results of the study showed that most students had good or normal nutritional status (based on general BMI criteria, not the BMI as per the Asia-Pacific Guidelines). Naturally, this would be associated with a high perception of the benefits of healthy eating. Therefore, it is recommended to analyze the data according to nutritional status levels, as this would allow for a clearer identification of factors associated with healthy food practices. Such analysis would enable the development of more accurate public health policies and targeted interventions, particularly by identifying predictive factors among individuals who are overweight or obese.
- If available, report model fit statistics (e.g., R²) for the regression analysis to indicate how well the predictors explain variation in healthy food practices.
1. The study provides valuable descriptive data on factors influencing healthy dietary choices and demonstrates commendable effort in data collection. However, the introduction does not offer a compelling rationale for the study’s necessity. A critical synthesis of existing literature is lacking, which weakens the manuscript’s ability to demonstrate how it extends or challenges previous findings.
2. Although the authors highlight an empirical issue within a university context and suggest a need for intervention, the use of a cross-sectional design is misaligned with this aim. If the research is exploratory or basic research, the introduction should emphasize the relationships between the independent and dependent variables, rather than implying program development or intervention outcomes.
3. There is a lack of coherence between Paragraphs 5 and 6, which impedes clarity. If previous research has already demonstrated the positive effects of self-efficacy on dietary habits, the justification for re-examining this variable should be more critical and clearly articulated.
4. In Paragraph 7, the rationale for exploring perceived benefits and barriers to healthy eating remains vague, and the constructs themselves are insufficiently defined.
5. The manuscript currently lacks a clear articulation of its novelty or theoretical contribution.
1. This study fits with the scope of health sciences.
2. The description of materials and measurements is detailed, yet several areas require clarification:
• Line 141: The term psychological disorder is too broad and should be clearly defined in the context of participant exclusion.
• Line 139: More information is needed regarding the psychometric properties and origin of the survey instruments used.
3. Regarding the measurement section:
• Line 153: The use of an 87-item questionnaire raises concerns about respondent fatigue and potential biases affecting the validity of responses.
• Lines 160–163: BMI was reportedly measured using a portable electronic scale. It is unclear whether participants visited a lab or whether the study was entirely online. This ambiguity undermines the reliability of the BMI data.
• The authors should cite validated sources for the questionnaires used to measure independent variables and clarify how these were adapted, if applicable.
4. The study procedure lacks sufficient detail. If data collection was conducted online, the method used to obtain accurate anthropometric data must be clearly justified
Descriptive statistics are thoroughly presented. However, the multiple regression analysis lacks rigor, primarily due to the omission of effect sizes, which are essential for interpreting practical significance. Including these would greatly enhance the robustness of the statistical reporting.
The discussion is excessively long and lacks structural clarity. Given that the study centers on knowledge and self-efficacy, these themes should be prioritized in the discussion before addressing secondary constructs such as benefits and barriers.
The discussion also lacks theoretical grounding, which is crucial for interpreting the findings within a broader behavioral framework.
A more concise, focused, and theoretically integrated discussion would significantly strengthen the manuscript.
-
Regarding the weights and heights of the participants, who took the measures? Is there any proficiency or training? Is there any calibration before using the instruments?
It is preferable to show the numbers in the correct format, i.e., 0.1, not .1.
LINES 68-69: "University students comprise a substantial segment of society worldwide, totaling approximately 235 million individuals."
The authors are kindly requested to verify this (235 million) figure. (knowing that the whole Kingdom's population is much less).
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.