Rating One’s Diet Quality: Qualitative Study Results
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper should be corrected before considering for publication. What is the research gap and what is the State of the art? I do not see the research gap. What are the New things in the research? How is the paper organised? What is the research hypothesis? The research results are not well presented and discussion. Please present your research using figures. The conclusion should include policy implications.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful and comprehensive review of our manuscript. We have incorporated the majority of the comments and suggestions and feel that our manuscript is improved based on these edits (identified in red font). As is often the case, we needed to balance writing an informative yet concise manuscript that would attract and hold readers’ attention. With the additions requested by the reviewers, our manuscript now consists of 5,586 words. We request consideration from the editor and reviewers regarding the concern that adding additional length to our manuscript may make reading our manuscript an onerous task for interested individuals. We have addressed the reviewers’ specific comments and suggestions in the items that follow.
Reviewer 1
- The paper should be corrected before considering for publication.
Response: Please see our responses to the reviewer’s specific questions/recommendations in items 2-8.
- What is the research gap and what is the State of the art? I do not see the research gap.
Response: We apologize that there was not more clarity regarding content reflecting the research gap and state of the art. We have now identified the research gap in the Introduction (line 62-63). Our research methods followed recommended protocols and therefore did include state of the art qualitative ideals. However, if there are other innovations that the reviewer feels is missing from our text, we will be happy to include those notations.
- What are the New things in the research?
Response: The unique outcomes and ideas related to our findings are outlined in the Discussion (lines 245-249, 254-255, 258-263, 279-280, 308-309).
- How is the paper organised?
Response: We used the journal’s template to organize the sections of our paper in the following order – abstract, keywords, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusions, supplementary information, abbreviations, and references.
- What is the research hypothesis?
Response: Thank you for this comment. We did not have a research hypothesis prior to conducting our study because it was exploratory in nature. However, our primary research question was centered around why people rate their diet the way they do. The results of this inquiry are being used to formulate research questions for future studies.
- The research results are not well presented and discussion.
Response: We believe that the presentation of our results is logical and informative as we discuss each theme and its subthemes in the order presented in Table 2. If the reviewer could provide specific examples of how our results are lacking, we would be happy to revise them.
- Please present your research using figures.
Response: Because our findings consist of themes, subthemes, and illustrative quotes, we feel they are best presented and more easily understood in a table (versus a figure). If the reviewer could provide more context regarding what could be found in an image, we will be happy to incorporate this into our manuscript.
- The conclusion should include policy implications.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added policy implications to the Conclusions (lines 335-337).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is well-written and addresses a highly relevant topic related to the complexity involved in self-perceptions of diet quality. Understanding this complexity is crucial for improving the accuracy of dietary self-assessment and linking perceptions to measurable outcomes.
However, the introduction is somewhat underdeveloped and would benefit from further expansion. It is recommended that the discussion around the disconnect between self-perception of diet quality and actual dietary intake be deepened, as this is a central issue that underpins the study's relevance.
In my opinion, the materials and methods section are appropriately presented and demonstrates methodological rigor.
Nevertheless, the presentation of the results could be improved to enhance the scientific value of the article. The findings' clarity, structure, and analytical depth should be strengthened.
It is also strongly recommended that the authors provide sociodemographic characterization of the focus group participants, as this information could significantly influence both the interpretation of the results and the reproducibility of the study.
Author Response
Response to Dietetics Reviewers’ Comments
Please see attachment.
We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful and comprehensive review of our manuscript. We have incorporated the majority of the comments and suggestions and feel that our manuscript is improved based on these edits (identified in red font). As is often the case, we needed to balance writing an informative yet concise manuscript that would attract and hold readers’ attention. With the additions requested by the reviewers, our manuscript now consists of 5,586 words. We request consideration from the editor and reviewers regarding the concern that adding additional length to our manuscript may make reading our manuscript an onerous task for interested individuals. We have addressed the reviewers’ specific comments and suggestions in the items that follow.
Reviewer 2
- The article is well-written and addresses a highly relevant topic related to the complexity involved in self-perceptions of diet quality. Understanding this complexity is crucial for improving the accuracy of dietary self-assessment and linking perceptions to measurable outcomes.
Response: We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the importance of our research.
- However, the introduction is somewhat underdeveloped and would benefit from further expansion. It is recommended that the discussion around the disconnect between self-perception of diet quality and actual dietary intake be deepened, as this is a central issue that underpins the study's relevance.
Response: Thank you for this comment. As is often the case, we needed to balance writing an informative yet concise manuscript that would attract and hold readers’ attention. Thus, we purposely kept our Introduction brief. However, we can understand the reviewer’s concern about adding more information surrounding the disconnect between self-perceived and actual dietary intake. Hence, we have expanded this discussion in the Introduction (lines 45-51).
- In my opinion, the materials and methods section are appropriately presented and demonstrates methodological rigor.
Response: We thank the reviewer for their positive comments about our materials and methods section.
- Nevertheless, the presentation of the results could be improved to enhance the scientific value of the article. The findings' clarity, structure, and analytical depth should be strengthened.
Response: Thank you for these suggestions. We believe that the presentation of our results is logical and informative as we discuss each theme and its subthemes in the order presented in Table 2. Further, in the Discussion, we present the findings of our study in the same order as presented in the Results to maintain the same structure and provide clarity throughout the manuscript. We also believe that the analytical depth of our study is appropriate and sufficient for a qualitative study. However, we have added sentences to the Discussion to provide more clarity regarding the findings about healthy food descriptions (lines 272-276).
- It is also strongly recommended that the authors provide sociodemographic characterization of the focus group participants, as this information could significantly influence both the interpretation of the results and the reproducibility of the study.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Unfortunately, we did not collect demographic information on our participants other than what group they represented (e.g., small-scale farmer, health clinic patient). In hindsight, this information would have been useful and informative to collect. However, it is not possible for us to retrospectively collect this information from our participants.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting study that aligns with many others to show how and why people choose their diet. Overall it has been well written, however, I think there needs to be some clarification from line 101.
Did NVIVO do the transcribing or a trained researcher?
Did you use a theory for analyses and Braun and Clark for coding themes?
You stated that the first focus group was used to create the themes, but what about new themes that would have occurred in later focus groups?
Please explain what grits are for the non US readers.
Line 265 - there is a wrong reference, it is 4 but this is not in the references as there is already a [4].
Author Response
Response to Dietetics Reviewers’ Comments
Please see attachment.
We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful and comprehensive review of our manuscript. We have incorporated the majority of the comments and suggestions and feel that our manuscript is improved based on these edits (identified in red font). As is often the case, we needed to balance writing an informative yet concise manuscript that would attract and hold readers’ attention. With the additions requested by the reviewers, our manuscript now consists of 5,586 words. We request consideration from the editor and reviewers regarding the concern that adding additional length to our manuscript may make reading our manuscript an onerous task for interested individuals. We have addressed the reviewers’ specific comments and suggestions in the items that follow.
Reviewer 3
- This is an interesting study that aligns with many others to show how and why people choose their diet.
Response: We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the value of our study.
- Overall it has been well written, however, I think there needs to be some clarification from line 101. Did NVIVO do the transcribing or a trained researcher?
Response: We apologize for the ambiguity of our wording. A researcher trained in the use of NVivo used the software to provide an initial transcription of the focus group discussions. The same researcher then checked the NVivo transcriptions for accuracy, making corrections as needed. This has been clarified in the Materials and Methods (lines 107-111).
- Did you use a theory for analyses and Braun and Clark for coding themes?
Response: Thank you for adding this clarification. We did use the 6 steps of thematic analysis suggested by Braun and Clarke. This has been added to the Methods (lines 122-123).
- You stated that the first focus group was used to create the themes, but what about new themes that would have occurred in later focus groups?
Response: We apologize for not completely describing our coding system. We did adjust our subthemes based on subsequent focus groups. This has been clarified in the Materials and Methods (lines 114-117).
- Please explain what grits are for the non US readers.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have provided a definition of grits in Table 2, quality of diet theme, culture and tradition subtheme, illustrative quote #1.
- Line 265 - there is a wrong reference, it is 4 but this is not in the references as there is already a [4].
Response: We thank the reviewer for catching this error and apologize for the oversight. The reference number is correct (now reference #6), but it should be in brackets and not superscripted. The formatting has been corrected (line 279).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Authors improved the paper and responded to my comments. The paper can be published.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe answers and corrections satisfied me.
