Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to commend the authors for addressing an important and timely topic. The manuscript offers a thoughtful qualitative exploration of food insecurity among undergraduate students within a private, urban U.S. university context. The use of a multidimensional framework of food security is conceptually strong and adds meaningful depth to the understanding of how students experience, negotiate, and interpret food insecurity in their daily lives. The manuscript is generally well written, clear, and grounded in relevant literature.

That said, I believe the paper would benefit from several clarifications and enhancements before it can be considered for publication.

 

1. Introduction

- Please articulate the scientific gap more explicitly.

- Clarify how this study advances beyond existing qualitative work.

- Provide stronger justification for focusing on a private, urban university context.

2. Study Aims

- Revise the aims to make them more direct and specific.

- Clearly state the comparative intention between students experiencing food insecurity and those who do not.

3. Methodology

- Provide a more detailed justification for merging “persistent” and “episodic” food insecurity groups.

- Explain clearly how this decision affects interpretation, particularly regarding the “stability” dimension.

- Expand the discussion on transferability of findings to similar contexts.

4. Reflexivity

- Further discuss how research team characteristics may have influenced:

- interview dynamics,

- data collection,

- interpretation of findings.

- Clearly describe strategies used to minimise potential bias.

5. Thematic Analysis

- Clarify explicitly that themes were generated inductively before being mapped onto the conceptual framework.

- Indicate whether any themes did not fully align with the framework and how they were handled.

6. Results

- Consider reducing some overly descriptive sections to enhance conciseness.

- Explore the experiences of specific subgroups (e.g., international students) in slightly greater depth.

7. Discussion

- Strengthen the analysis of the paradox that unlimited meal plans do not necessarily guarantee full food security.

Further emphasise dimensions such as:

- agency,

- nutritional quality,

- cultural suitability.

- Provide more concrete and actionable institutional and policy implications.

- More clearly articulate the conceptual contribution of the study.

8. Limitations

Please expand to include:

- potential selection bias,

- possible social desirability bias,

- timing of data collection within the academic cycle,

- implications of merging food insecurity categories.

 

Overall, this is a strong and valuable manuscript. Addressing the points above will meaningfully improve clarity, analytical depth, and contribution to the literature. I look forward to seeing a revised version.

Likewise, I have added some additional explanations to my comments. Please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Our response to Reviewer 1 is attached in a Word file. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I carrefully read the manuscript „“I was thinking about food all the time, I didn’t have enough”: Understanding the Multidimensional Nature of Food Insecurity Among Undergraduates at an Urban U.S. Campus”. The aim of this study was to explore how undergraduate students at a private, urban U.S. university experience the multiple dimensions of food insecurity. This is a valuable and interesting study. The manuscript is well structured, the methodology is properly applied and the findings are relevant for academic community, researchers, and students.

I appreciated the description of the limitations and strenghts of the study. I suggest to add another limitation: the period when the interviews were conducted (between December 2024 and January 2025 - a holiday period) is reflected in the small number of respondents. Also, you should explore the posibility to extend the research in other universities. At the end of the discussion section, you should highlight the need to implement strategies to avoid food insecurity on campus. A brief description of these strategies would be helpful for readers to better understand the dimensions of food insecurity.

 

Author Response

Our response to Reviewer 2 is attached in a Word file. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the reviewers’ comments thoroughly and thoughtfully, resulting in a manuscript that is clearer, more rigorous, and analytically stronger. The revised version demonstrates a well-articulated scientific gap, clearly defined aims, transparent methodological decisions, and a substantially improved discussion that convincingly highlights the multidimensional nature of food insecurity, particularly the limitations of unlimited meal plans in ensuring food security. The reflexivity and limitations sections have been meaningfully expanded, and the conceptual contribution of the study is now clearly articulated. Overall, the manuscript represents a solid and valuable contribution to the literature and is suitable for publication in its current form.