How Do Nutritionists/Dietitians Use Social Media to Communicate with Their Public? Global Perspectives on Social Media Practices: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The systematic literature review presents an interesting and relevant topic. The applied method is correct. The results are presented clearly. The implications are properly discussed.

In Figure 1, please indicate how many articles were excluded due to each exclusion criterion separately (a-f).

Please explain 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 in Table 1.

In Table 5, please make it clear what the percentages refer to: share of dietitians, share of content posted by a dietitian…

The title of section 3.7.3 is wrong. It is about ethical issues.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. I have conducted a thorough and rigorous review of your paper. Your work addresses a timely and important topic regarding the professional use of social media by Registered Nutritionists and Dietitians (RNDs). However, in order to enhance the clarity, rigor, and academic quality of your paper, several areas require substantial revision and improvement.

Please carefully review the detailed feedback below, which focuses on language precision, logical flow, methodological transparency, result presentation, and the depth of discussion. Addressing these areas will greatly strengthen the coherence, academic rigor, and overall impact of your study.

I appreciate your efforts and look forward to reviewing the revised version of the manuscript that reflects these improvements.

Abstract Section

1. Clarification of the Research Objective
   The objective should be stated more specifically. Rather than only stating that the review explores RNDs' use of social media, specify how and why they use it (e.g., benefits, challenges, impacts on practice). Consider:
   "This systematic review aims to investigate how and why Registered Nutritionists and Dietitians use social media in their professional practice, focusing on benefits, challenges, and impact."
2. Methodology Details
   The abstract lacks details on search terms and quality assessment. For reproducibility and transparency, briefly mention keywords and the quality appraisal method:
   "Databases were searched using terms such as 'nutritionist', 'dietitian', 'social media', and quality was assessed using the MMAT tool."
3. Specificity in Results
   The results are vague. Add details on most commonly used platforms, key challenges, and participant demographics. For example:
   "Instagram and Twitter were the most frequently used platforms. Challenges included lack of digital communication training, especially among older professionals."
4. Conclusion and Recommendations
   Conclusions are too general. Include specific, actionable recommendations:
   "RNDs would benefit from training in content creation and ethical digital communication. Clearer guidelines from professional organizations are also recommended."
5. Sentence Flow and Clarity
   Improve transitions and sentence cohesion. Example revision:
   "Although ethical concerns were reported, many RNDs maintained compliance with professional standards, particularly in regions with strict marketing regulations."
6. Keywords
   Replace the broad term “practices” with more specific keywords such as:
   “social media use practices,” “professional engagement,” “digital nutrition communication.”

Introduction Section

1. Grammar and Phrasing
   Multiple grammar and syntax errors reduce clarity. Examples:
• “serves a platform” → “serves as a platform”
• “due quality” → “high-quality”
• “evidence based-knowledge” → “evidence-based knowledge”
  A thorough language edit is required.
2. Logical Flow
   Improve transitions between paragraphs. Example:
   "To ensure the credibility of shared content, the active presence of qualified nutrition professionals is essential…"
3. Statement of Purpose
   The study’s objective is delayed and vague. Improve clarity:
   “This systematic review synthesizes evidence on how RNDs use social media professionally across diverse settings.”
4. Research Gap
   The gap is underdeveloped. Clarify the limitation of prior studies:
   “Few reviews have explored global trends, ethical considerations, and the impact of RND social media use across regions.”
5. Citation Clarity
   Clarify which parts of sentences are supported by citations, and consider naming key authors when citing influential studies.

Materials and Methods Section

1. Search Strategy
   The Boolean logic is unclear. Use parentheses to improve reproducibility:
   ("nutritionist" OR "dietitian" OR "dietician") AND ("social media" OR "digital media" OR "Instagram" OR "Twitter")
   Also, clarify whether filters were applied.
2. Ambiguous Time Frame
   The search period ends in February 2025, which is in the future. This should be corrected or clarified as a placeholder.
3. Search Process Details
   Clarify if synonyms or controlled vocabularies (e.g., MeSH terms) were used for each database.
4. PECO Framework
   Justify its use, especially since no comparator is included:
   “The PECO framework was used to structure the data extraction, despite the absence of a comparator.”
5. Data Synthesis
   Detail how data were integrated:
   “Qualitative data were thematically analyzed, and quantitative findings were descriptively summarized.”
6. Quality Assessment
   Explain MMAT scoring and how reviewer disagreements were resolved.
7. Table References
   Indicate whether tables are in the main text or supplementary materials.
8. Language Clarity
   Example revision:
   “Data extraction was independently conducted using Microsoft Excel 365.”

Results Section

1. Language and Grammar
   Numerous grammatical errors and awkward expressions reduce clarity. Example:
   “Facebook was most frequently used platform” → “Facebook was the most frequently used platform.”
2. PRISMA Flow Diagram
   Reference and summarize the PRISMA diagram:
   “Of the 359 records identified, 10 studies were included after screening.”
3. Repetition in Study Characteristics
   Avoid restating similar details. Summarize with a comparative statement.
4. Lack of Standardization
   Present quantitative summaries:
   “Use rates ranged from 37.5% to 100%. Instagram and Twitter were the top platforms.”
5. Subsection Titles
   Remove duplicated titles (e.g., “3.7.2.” appears twice).
6. Weak Thematic Synthesis
   Group findings under synthesized themes:
• Theme 1: Evidence-Based Content
• Theme 2: Client Engagement
• Theme 3: Professional Networking
7. Lack of Interpretation
   Briefly interpret each key result:
   “The preference for Instagram suggests RNDs favor visual platforms for client outreach.”
8. Ethical Issues – Superficial
   Deepen this section by specifying ethical concerns (e.g., privacy, misinformation).
9. Percentages and Citations
   Use standard decimal format and clarify what percentages refer to (e.g., participants, posts).

Discussion Section

1. Structure and Flow
   Restructure the section with subheadings:
• Summary of Findings
• Interpretation and Literature Comparison
• Professional Implications
• Ethical Considerations
• Limitations
• Future Research
2. Redundancy
   Avoid repeating results. Replace with synthesized insights and implications.
3. Weak Literature Integration
   Expand comparisons with prior studies.
   “While earlier studies noted limited RND online engagement, post-2020 data show increased digital participation.”
4. Language and Tone
   Revise informal and incorrect phrasing:
• “female’s professionals” → “female professionals”
• “witch complicates…” → “which complicates…”
5. Unsupported Claims
   Ensure all claims are backed by evidence or citations.
6. Limitations – Improve Organization
   Break into categories:
• Design-related (cross-sectional)
• Data limitations (self-report bias)
• Sample variation
• Reporting inconsistencies
7. Missing Future Research Section
   Add a paragraph:
   “Future studies should adopt longitudinal designs to assess long-term impacts of social media use among RNDs.”

Conclusion Section

1. Too General
   Be specific about platforms and applications:
   “Social media, especially Instagram and Twitter, is widely used for patient education, evidence-based communication, and professional branding.”
2. Summary of Findings
   Clearly restate key findings:
   “Most studies found regular social media use among RNDs, with usage influenced by age, digital skills, and regional norms.”
3. Ethics and Training
   Specify training needs and ethical concerns:
   “Training in digital communication and content validation is needed, along with guidance on confidentiality and misinformation.”
4. Future Research
   Be specific:
   “Longitudinal studies are needed to assess client outcomes, generational engagement differences, and digital identity formation.”

References

1. Consistency in Author Names
   Choose either spaced or condensed initials and apply consistently.
2. Journal Abbreviations
   Follow a recognized style guide (e.g., NLM abbreviations).
3. DOIs
   Format uniformly:
• Preferred: https://doi.org/...
4. Reference Numbers
   The order of citation and numbering is consistent — well done.
5. Page and Article Numbers
   Double-check accuracy for online and early-access articles.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from a thorough language edit to improve clarity, grammar, and sentence structure. There are multiple instances of awkward phrasing, incorrect word usage (e.g., “witch” instead of “which”), and grammatical errors that hinder the readability of the text. Improving the flow between sentences and ensuring consistent academic tone will enhance overall comprehension and presentation. It is recommended that the authors seek assistance from a professional English language editor or a native speaker familiar with academic writing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 This manuscript has been appropriately revised according to the reviewers’ comments. However, English editing is still required. Please refer to the comments on the quality of the English language.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend having the manuscript edited for English to improve clarity, correct minor grammatical errors, and ensure a professional and polished presentation suitable for peer review. Specifically:

1. Grammar and Expression Errors
   There are several grammatical mistakes and unnatural expressions.

   • Example: “This study limitations are related to…” → “The limitations of this study are related to…”

   • Example: “allows to provide future research” → “provides guidance for future research”
     Such errors could be noted by reviewers as language issues during the peer review process.

2. Sentence Length and Readability
   Some sentences contain 3–4 clauses, making them difficult to read. Low readability may hinder reviewers’ understanding of the content.

3. Numerical and Statistical Reporting
   Age, usage rates, and percentages are presented inconsistently. Standardized reporting (e.g., percentages, mean ± SD) is recommended in academic English.

4. Academic Tone
   While generally professional, some expressions are slightly informal or repetitive. Revising for a more formal and concise style would enhance overall readability and professionalism.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf