Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

According to this reviewer, the response by Flatscher et al. effectively addresses the concerns raised by Palumbo et al. with a comprehensive and thoughtful explanation of their study’s methodology and results. Their response also demonstrates transparency and a willingness to engage with constructive feedback. As it appears to this reviewer, Flatscher et al.’s response could be a valuable addition to the subject matter. Hence, it merits consideration for publication as it contributes to the ongoing scientific discourse on the topic.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reading the original article, I think the authors of the comment section described valid points concerning the article “Flatscher et al. Impact of Mediterranean Diet on Lipid Composition in the Colaus-PsyColaus Study. Nutrients 2023, 15, 4659˝. Although the authors of the original article detailed perceived limitations of their own study, the comment piece aimed to further expand on those limitations and offer suggestions for the development and validation of tools for quantitative measures within nutrition research.

 

In this new section, “Reply to Palumbo et al. Comment on “Flatscher et al. Impact of Mediterranean Diet on Lipid Composition in the Colaus-PsyColaus Study. Nutrients 2023, 15, 4659”, the original authors graciously accepted the feedback, acknowledged the limitations, offered their own perspective on the comments section in the context of their own unique study, and confirmed the need for tools within nutrition research to obtain reliable and consistent results. I fully support the original authors’ statement, “ However, contradiction is part of the scientific methodology, and not all results have to be consistent with the existing literature.”

 

This reply piece was well written, points were direct, and I do not see the need for any changes.