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.
The paper can be accepted in its present form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Arkaitz Zubiaga, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The revised manuscript has been improved accordingly.
The revised manuscript has been improved accordingly.
The revised manuscript has been improved accordingly.
I have completed my evaluation of your manuscript. The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your manuscript following minor revision. I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing the comments below.
all comments have been well answered
good
good
the author managed to answer all comments well, this work deserves to be published
After the changes, there are serious technical errors in the text, for example, in abstract:
This study aims to explore the perception of obesity as a chronic disease through content analysis “ofsocial” media..
or
Descriptive “statistiscs” were used to assess the extent obesity was portrayed as chronic “disease. different aspects of comments.”
The paper should be carefully read once again and adjusted to the academic standards.
Research questions are well defined, relevant and meaningful. It is explained how the research fills an identified knowledge gap. The research is conducted in conformity with the prevailing ethical standards in the field.
The obtained results are of interest to the general and academic audience. The conclusions are appropriately stated and connected to the original investigated questions.
After consulting experienced reviewers and our own assessment of the paper, I am happy to inform you that we offer you the opportunity of a revision. The reviewers identified a number of concerns that need to be addressed for the paper to be acceptable.
Therefore, I am inviting you to submit a revised version of the paper, for further review. Please note that the resubmission does not guarantee acceptance.
Writing – overall evaluation: Sound with minor or moderate revisions
References – overall evaluation: Sound
Supplemental Information and Data – overall evaluation: Sound
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses: Sound with minor or moderate revisions
method need more improvement
viding is good but need more improvement,
Please describe all application that you use for analysis, and the please provide description result in table or chart to make reader more easy to understand, also for data analysis I suggest author use some application to make data analysis more interesting
The topic is interesting and important. However, there are several key areas
that need more work prior to publication. I have summarized the required
changes in the hope that the feedback will be useful to you as you update
the paper. I am not able to consider your manuscript for publication at the
present time, but I hope you will consider the feedback provided by the
following suggestions to revise your manuscript and re-submit.
The authors deal with a contemporary topic entitled “Content analysis of social media regarding obesity as a chronic disease“. The paper is written in an original and scientific way. However, I would like to address several issues: Please see the attachment
I would recommend a schematic representation of the methodology. To draw some flowchart of the problem (it will be helpful for readers to understand it easily).
In this section, it would be great as well if the authors inserted some charts to present the results in the best possible way.
In addition, the conclusion can be improved. The main contributions as well as future directions of the paper should be emphasized in this section as well.
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.