Next Article in Journal
Polyphenols, the Healthy Brand of Olive Oil: Insights and Perspectives
Next Article in Special Issue
A Comparison of Diet Quality in a Sample of Rural and Urban Australian Adults
Previous Article in Journal
Trajectories and Determinants of Physical Activity during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Population-Based Study of Middle-Aged and Elderly Individuals in The Netherlands
Previous Article in Special Issue
Factors Related to Diet Quality: A Cross-Sectional Study of 1055 University Students
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Do Older Women of Reproductive Age Have Better Diet Quality than Younger Women of Reproductive Age?

Nutrients 2021, 13(11), 3830; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13113830
by Nahal Habibi 1,2, Katherine M. Livingstone 3, Suzanne Edwards 4 and Jessica A. Grieger 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Nutrients 2021, 13(11), 3830; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13113830
Submission received: 25 August 2021 / Revised: 23 October 2021 / Accepted: 23 October 2021 / Published: 27 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Healthy Eating in Relation to National Dietary Guidelines)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a refreshingly brilliant piece of research. The research is novel, well-conducted, and superbly written.

I have just 3 minor suggestions:

1) I can't seem to locate footnote 1 in Table 1.

2) Table 4 needs reformatting - it may be that something has gone wrong when it was uploaded.

3) Please add P-values to tables 1, 2 & 3. 

Author Response

23 October, 2021

 

To the Editor,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our paper for potential publication in Nutrients. We have addressed the comments in our revision. In the sections below we detail our changes and respond to each of the comments. All changes have been undertaken using track changes within the manuscript.

 

REVIEWER 1:

Comment 1: I can't seem to locate footnote 1 in Table 1.

Response 1: We have now added this: “1 Represents mean (SE)”

 

Comment 2: Table 4 needs reformatting - it may be that something has gone wrong when it was uploaded.

Response 2: Thankyou, we have now formatted this correctly.

 

Comment 3: Please add P-values to tables 1, 2 & 3. 

Response 3: Table 1 and Table 2 represent descriptives of the population and there are no specific comparisons between groups, nor hypothesis testing. We don’t believe that adding P values to Table 1 or Table 2 are needed. For table 3, all P values are greater than 0.05 between groups. We have added to footnote 1: “all statistical differences between groups in unadjusted and adjusted analyses were P>0.05”.

 

Sincerely,

Jessica Grieger

University of Adelaide

Reviewer 2 Report

Table 4 needs to be formatted for better reading.

Author Response

23 October, 2021

 

To the Editor,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our paper for potential publication in Nutrients. We have addressed the comments in our revision. In the sections below we detail our changes and respond to each of the comments. All changes have been undertaken using track changes within the manuscript.

REVIEWER 2:

Comment 1: Table 4 needs to be formatted for better reading.

Response 1: Thankyou, we have now formatted this correctly.

 

Sincerely,

Jessica Grieger

University of Adelaide

Back to TopTop