Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1)    The design of the study should appear in the title: cross-sectional, longitudinal, observational, clinical, general population etc.

2)    In the abstract “Introduction” and “Objective” should appear as one subsection “Background & Aim”

3)    The adjective “obese” in the abstract as well as in the entire manuscript should be replace by “with obesity”, as “obese” is highly stigmatizing

4)    The keywords should differs from those which appear in the title, otherwise their use become useless

5)    In the Introduction section, following the aim a hypothesis of a potential finding should be added by the end of this section

6)    The methods the Eligibility, Inclusion and Exclusion criteria are missing, these should mentioned properly

7)    The discussion section is really poor, as so it should be re-written properly taking into account the extensive description of the following points in distinct subsections:

·      The main findings of the study, and their comparison with previously published studies on the same topic on different population on national and international level as well as on different ethnic groups

·      The main implication of the study on local and global levels this justify the utility of publishing this work in an international peer-review journal  

·      The strengths and limitations of the study

·      The new directions for future needed research on the topic

Author Response

Dear reviewers:

After a thorough review of our manuscript, based on your suggestions, we are resubmitting it for further evaluation.

In our response letter, we have highlighted the changes made to the original manuscript in red.

We thank you for your excellent work, which has allowed us to make significant improvements.

Reviewer 1

1 COMMENT: The study design should appear in the title: cross-sectional, longitudinal, observational, clinical, general population, etc.

ANSWER: Thank you for the comment. We have revisited the title and modified it with your suggestion. “Snack Expenditure and Nutritional Status in Chilean Schoolchildren: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Southern Region.”

 

2 COMMENT: “Introduction” and “Objective” should appear as a subsection in the abstract, “Background & Aim.”

ANSWER: We appreciate the comment and have improved the wording, adding your suggestion to the abstract.

 

3 COMMENT: The adjective "obese" in the abstract as well as in the entire manuscript should be replaced by "with obesity," as "obese" is highly stigmatizing.

ANSWER: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the manuscript and replaced all the adjectives "obese" with the phrase "with obesity."

 

4 COMMENT: The keywords should differ from those that appear in the title; otherwise, their use would become useless.

ANSWER: We appreciate your outreach. We have added new keywords: Childhood obesity; Adolescents; Dietary habits; Pocket money; Ultra-processed foods; Public health policy.

 

5 COMMENT: In the Introduction section, following the aim, a hypothesis of a potential finding should be added by the end of this section.

ANSWER: Thank you for this comment. We agree on the importance of adding a hypothesis. It was added as the final paragraph of the introduction.

 

6 COMMENT: The methods that lack the eligibility, inclusion, and exclusion criteria should be properly mentioned.

ANSWER: We appreciate your suggestion again. We have briefly added the inclusion and exclusion criteria to the text in section 2.2 of the manuscript.

 

7 COMMENT: The discussion section is truly poor and should therefore be appropriately rewritten, taking into account the extensive description of the following points in various subsections:

-The main findings of the study and their comparison with previously published studies on the same topic in different populations at the national and international levels, as well as in different ethnic groups.

-The main implications of the study at the local and global levels justify the usefulness of publishing this work in a peer-reviewed international journal.

-The strengths and limitations of the study.

-The new directions for future research needed on the topic.

ANSWER: Again, we appreciate your suggestion. We have made the recommended improvements by adding the main findings of the study, its implications, strengths, limitations, and new directions for future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I had the great privilege to review the manuscript entitled “Expenditure on Snacks and Its Relationship with Nutritional 2 Status in Chilean Schoolchildren: Evidence from a Southern 3 Region”. The manuscript addresses a relevant issue on snack expenditures and nutritional status in Chilean schoolchildren; however, several aspects could be strengthened:

1. Although the abstract provides detailed data, it lacks emphasis on the public health implications and novelty of the study; it is recommended to highlight the policy or educational relevance of the findings in the conclusion.
2. The introduction identifies the link between obesity and pocket money in schools, but the research gap regarding the inconsistent association between pocket money and nutritional status is not clearly articulated; it is suggested to compare international literature more explicitly and highlight the necessity of this study.
3. The methods section describes sampling, instruments, and ethics thoroughly, but the representativeness of the sample and potential sources of bias (e.g., socioeconomic status, parental education) are insufficiently addressed; it is recommended to add this information to strengthen rigor.
4. The results section mainly reports numbers and statistical tests but lacks in-depth interpretation of trends and subgroup differences; it is suggested to provide subgroup analyses or effect sizes to enhance persuasiveness.
5. The discussion appropriately mentions policy contexts such as the Food Labeling and Advertising Law, but the connection to the study data is not strong enough; it is recommended to link policy influences more clearly with the findings (e.g., purchase frequency or food choice proportions).
6. The conclusion points out that nutritional status is determined by multiple factors, but it is overly lengthy and partly repetitive of the discussion; it is recommended to refine it and clearly distinguish the key findings, public health implications, and directions for future research.

Author Response

Dear reviewers:

After a thorough review of our manuscript, based on your suggestions, we are resubmitting it for further evaluation.

In our response letter, we have highlighted the changes made to the original manuscript in red.

We thank you for your excellent work, which has allowed us to make significant improvements.

Reviewer 2

 

1. COMMENT: Although the abstract provides detailed data, it lacks emphasis on the public health implications and novelty of the study; it is recommended to highlight the policy or educational relevance of the findings in the conclusion.

ANSWER: We appreciate its scope, have reviewed the abstract, and have made improvements to the document.

 

2. COMMENT: The introduction identifies the link between obesity and pocket money in schools, but does not clearly articulate the research gap regarding the inconsistent association between pocket money and nutritional status. We suggest comparing the international literature more explicitly and highlighting the need for this study.

ANSWER: We appreciate the suggestion and have modified the sentence. The introduction has been improved by articulating the research gap regarding the association between pocket money and nutritional status.

 

3 COMMENT: The methods section describes the sampling, instruments, and ethics in detail, but does not sufficiently address sample representativeness or potential sources of bias (e.g., socioeconomic status, parental education); it is recommended that this information be added to strengthen rigor.

ANSWER: We have completed the requested revision and have added a section (2.5 Representativeness and Potential Sources of Bias) to the methods section.

 

4 COMMENT: The results section primarily reports numbers and statistical tests but lacks an in-depth interpretation of trends and differences between subgroups. It is suggested that subgroup analyses or effect sizes be provided to improve persuasiveness.

ANSWER: Regarding your comment, I appreciate the scope, and we have improved the interpretation of trends across groups.

 

 

5 COMMENT: The discussion appropriately mentions policy contexts such as the Food Labeling and Advertising Act, but the connection to the study data is not strong enough; it is recommended that policy influences be more clearly linked to the findings (e.g., purchase frequency or food choice proportions).

ANSWER: We appreciate this feedback. To address your question, we mention that the manuscript has been improved by linking policy influences, the study's main findings, implications, strengths, limitations, and new avenues for future research.

 

6 COMMENT: The conclusion notes that nutritional status is determined by multiple factors, but its discussion is too long and somewhat repetitive; it is recommended to refine it and clearly distinguish the key findings, public health implications, and directions for future research.

ANSWER: We appreciate your question. In response, we have improved the conclusion and added key findings regarding public health implications and directions for future research.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important and topical issue: the association between snack money, food preferences, and nutritional status in Chilean adolescents, especially in the unique context of the Magallanes region and the Chilean Antarctic. The study is well structured, clearly written, and provides valuable information that extends beyond the local context, with implications for public health policy and nutrition education.
The focus on an extreme climatic region (Magallanes) is highly original and relevant for public health policy in remote and polar environments.
In Methods (2.4), the authors state that normality was not respected and therefore nonparametric tests were applied. However, the results show the use of ANOVA (parametric test) instead of a nonparametric alternative (e.g., Kruskal-Wallis). Please review.
In Table 4 and the accompanying text, the categories “healthy” and “unhealthy” are used, but are not explicitly defined in Methods. Consider adding a paragraph in the methods.
Consider strengthening the limitations section with explicit recognition of possible measurement error (e.g., self-reported money spent, recall errors for food preferences).
Terminology: “Undernutrition ≥ -2 SD” should be clarified (should it be “≤ -2 SD”?).
Typo: “Female” → “Female” in Table 1.
Tables should be formatted consistently (some include footnotes with Chi-square, others without).
Clarify currency context for international readers (CLP = Chilean pesos; approximate USD equivalent can be added in parentheses).
Check numbering consistency (some references in the Discussion are cited out of order: [40,13,42]).
The manuscript has solid potential, but would benefit from major revision to resolve methodological inconsistencies and improve interpretation of results.

Author Response

 

Dear reviewers:

After a thorough review of our manuscript, based on your suggestions, we are resubmitting it for further evaluation.

In our response letter, we have highlighted the changes made to the original manuscript in red.

We thank you for your excellent work, which has allowed us to make significant improvements.

Reviewer 3 

1 COMMENT: In Methods (2.4), the authors state that normality was not respected and, therefore, nonparametric tests were applied. However, the results show the use of ANOVA (a parametric test) instead of a nonparametric alternative (e.g., Kruskal-Wallis). Please review.

ANSWER: Thank you for the important information. Statistical tests were repeated to avoid relying on the visual representation of the histogram, given the large sample size. Kurtosis tests were used to assess normality and skewness tests to look for asymmetry. This was added to the statistical analysis.

 

2 COMMENT: In Table 4 and the accompanying text, the categories "healthy" and "unhealthy" are used, but are not explicitly defined in the Methods. Consider adding a paragraph in the Methods section.

ANSWER: Thanks for the suggestions. We've added how responses were grouped to analyze these two categories: healthy and unhealthy (in addition to the option of not buying anything). This was added to section 2.4.2 of the variable description.

 

3 COMMENT: Strengthen the limitations section with explicit acknowledgment of potential measurement errors (e.g., self-reported money spent, recall errors for food preferences).

ANSWER: We appreciate your suggestion to add limitations; this gives the study strength and a solid foundation. Based on this, we decided to add limitations, strengths, and suggestions for future research.

 

4 COMMENT: Terminology: The expression "Malnutrition ≥ -2 SD" needs to be clarified (should it be "≤ -2 SD"?). Typographical error: "Female" → "Woman" in Table 1.

ANSWER: Thank you very much for the clarification. We took into account the error made with the symbols used; they were changed to ≤ according to the regulations, and your suggestion indicates

 

5 COMMENTS: Tables should be formatted uniformly (some include footnotes with chi-square, others without).

ANSWER: We appreciate the scope; we have re-reviewed the tables and their footnotes, and added chi-square and ANOVA to the tables where this test was performed.

 

6 COMMENT: Clarify the monetary context for international readers (CLP = Chilean pesos; the approximate equivalent in US dollars can be added in parentheses).

ANSWER: We appreciate your input again; we've added the dollar equivalent to the abstract and results sections.

 

7 COMMENT: Check the consistency of the numbering (some references in the Discussion are cited out of order: [40, 13, 42]).

ANSWER: We appreciate your correction; we have checked the citations and references, placing them in the correct order.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

.