Can Unveiling the Relationship between Nutritional Literacy and Sustainable Eating Behaviors Survive Our Future?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for article Can unveiling the relationship between nutritional literacy and sustainable eating behaviors survive our future? in this journal. Article require some modifications for consideration.

1. Abstract should be rewritten with importance of study.

2. Title can be changed or modified.

3. Discuss more results with recent literature.

4. Improve the English throughout the manuscript.

5. Reference style can be improved.

 Improve the English language throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for your contributions and corrections. Also, thank you very much for your time to review the manuscript in detail. We carefully considered your letter. The revisions in the submitted manuscript are explained as listed below.

Questions for General Evaluation

-Existing background on the subject has been enhanced as you suggested. The views of international organizations are contextualized in a short and concise manner by adding examples. The relevant changes have been made on the second page of the introduction and are written in red in the revision file.

- As you suggested, the references related to the topic have been increased. These references include both the opinions of international organizations on the subject and the results of current studies. We would like to point out that we have highlighted additional references in red in additions to the discussion and introduction.

- By making additions to the method as you and the other reviewers suggested, it has been made more clear and understandable. Additionally, information about Turkey's nutrition culture and study population was added as suggested by other reviewers. We have marked the changes in the method in red.

- As you suggest, in order making the discussion section more compelling, additions have been made and interpreted by comparing with the literature.

- Additions have been made to the conclusion section in the article, making it more emphatic and reflecting the results better as you said.

Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. As you suggested, the abstract section has been reworked to emphasize the importance of the study.
2. Changed the title as you suggested. A more eye-catching title was written.
3. The number of studies directly related to the subject is quite limited. As you suggested, it has been commented by adding references to the discussion section so that we can discuss further.
4. The article has been rechecked and improved for English.
5. Compliance of the reference style with the rules of the journal was rechecked.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall: 

Overall, the study is good, but there needs to be more clarity and explanation with regards to the sample group and the influence of cultural food practices that play a significant role in this kind of research. 

 

Abstract: 

Overall the abstract does a good job of summarizing the study and providing the essential information needed to understand the basic concepts of the paper.  It could be improved by providing a few additional pieces of information regarding age or demographics of the sampled population (such as age or geographic region).  It would also benefit from specifically stating that this information can be used to create an educational resource rather than simply stating that a new generation will be created (which is more an assumption rather than something that is definitive based on this study)

 

Introduction:

Overall the introduction does a good job of providing sufficient background for the subject and relevant literature in the field.  With regards to the purpose statement and hypothesis, it would benefit from being more specific as to HOW the relationship between food and nutrition literacy was to be determined.  For example, by adding the words “through interviews” or “by means of…” would help this section.

 

Materials and Methods: 

The participant description needs to have more specific demographics mentioned such as their age, ethnic or cultural background, and how they were recruited for this study in addition to their general place in society (e.g. working adults, college students, hospital patients, etc).  The method of recruitment would help to provide some insights into the mix of participants as well.   This is especially important since the mean age of these participants is quite young (around 22 yrs of age). 

 

Results:

Results are adequate and clearly described. 

 

Discussion:

Lines 82-85:  References should be cited here when talking about consumption of red meat and health and sustainability. 

Lines 85-88:  The authors mention the Mediterranean diet which needs to be described or at least summarized in this section to provide relevance and context to the previous statements regarding red meat.   This is especially important since the participants of this study were all in Turkey and are therefore more exposed to elements of the Mediterranean diet.  This should be mentioned as well with regards to the outcome of the study and the traditional diet in the area where the participants lived. 

Lines 118-120:  The statement around females being primary caretakers and knowing more about nutrition should have a reference or a cultural signifier such as “In the region/culture/country where the participants originated, women are often the primary caretakers of children…” since the statement does not hold true for all countries/regions/cultures. 

Additionally, the limitations section should be more comprehensive regarding the specific limitations of the participants associated with this study, especially regarding the young mean age, cultural diversity (or lack thereof) of the sample group, and the general cultural background of the group with relation to cultural views or practices regarding food.  If the sample group is mostly of the local population (which should be clarified both in the participant section as well as here), the general view or practice in that culture (with regards to food and view of food) should be summarized here since it plays a significant role in shaping the outcomes of this study.

 

Conclusion: 

The conclusion should also specify that the sample population was from a specific region and not necessarily representative of a greater global population. 

 

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 2

Thank you very much for your contributions and corrections. Also, thank you very much for your time to review the manuscript in detail. We carefully considered your letter. The revisions in the submitted manuscript are explained as listed below.

Questions for General Evaluation

- By making additions to the method as you suggested, it has been made more clear and understandable. We have marked the changes in the method in red.

- As you suggested, the references related to the topic have been increased. These references include both the opinions of international organizations on the subject and the results of current studies. We would like to point out that we have highlighted additional references in red in additions to the discussion and introduction.

- Additions have been made to the conclusion section in the article, making it more emphatic and reflecting the results better as you said.

Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- In addition, as you suggest, an addition has been made to the abstract section that the information here can be used to develop an educational resource.

- As you suggested, more descriptive information about the participants has been added to the abstract section. This information includes topics such as geographic region, age and education level. Changes made are written in red in the abstract section.

- Thank you very much for your comments about the introduction and your valuable suggestion for making the article more understandable. As you said, the method of evaluating the relationship between parameters is added in more detail to the last paragraph of the introduction.

-Many thanks for your suggestion for making the article more understandable. More descriptive information about the participants has been added to the materials and methods section. In addition, as you said, inclusion criteria were added to the study in order to make sense of the mean age of the participants. Additionally, information about Turkey's nutrition culture and study population was added as suggested by other reviewers.

- A summary information note has been added to the materials and methods section to explain the cultural nutrition practices of the individuals participating in the study.

- Thank you for your comment on the results of the study.

-Discussion: As you suggested, references have been added on red meat and health and sustainability.

-Discussion: Thank you very much for your review, which allowed us to look at the Mediterranean diet from a different perspective, such as geographic location. After briefly explaining the Mediterranean diet, as you suggested, due to the geographical location of the country where the study was conducted, other factors were also mentioned besides the ease of application. We have marked the additions made in red in the discussion section.

-Discussion: Thank you for providing the opportunity to add a reference that predominantly women care for children in Turkey. Based on your suggestion, it has been edited and highlighted in red.

-Limitations: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. As you suggest, more detailed explanations are given in both the material and method section and the limitation section due to the possible effects of other factors such as mean age and cultural differences on the study results.

-Conclusions: Thank you for your contribution. The addition you mentioned has been made to the conclusion section.

- The article has been rechecked and improved for English.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

It is an interesting topic and rarely addressed in specialized literature.Thank you for choosing me as a reviewer of this manuscript.

The manuscript with the title "Can unveiling the relationship between nutritional literacy and sustainable eating behaviors survive our future?" is worth appreciating because it presents an interesting topic, namely the relationship between nutritional literacy and sustainable eating behaviors in young adults.

In the specialized literature, there are no research articles that directly explore the relationship between the principles of sustainable nutrition and food, and nutritional literacy.

• Is the manuscript clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner?

The manuscript with the title " Can unveiling the relationship between nutritional literacy and sustainable eating behaviors survive our future?”

It is relatively clear.

• Are the cited references current (mostly within the last 5 years)? Does it include an abnormal number of self-citations?

There are 38 references, 3 references are over 10 years old, 10 references between 5-10 years and 25 from the last 5 years.

There is a self-citation for Saniye Bilici (16).

There is a numbering error in the bibliography, from 21 it goes directly to 23.

• Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis?

Yes, it is a relatively solid manuscript from a scientific point of view.

• Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section?

Mostly, yes.

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?

Partially.

·       Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?

The text contains 4 tables and an easy-to-interpret figure.

However,

The conclusions can be improved.

I congratulate you for your effort and the data provided.

My comments are only intended to make the paper better. Good luck!

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 3

Thank you very much for your contributions and corrections. Also, thank you very much for your time to review the manuscript in detail. We carefully considered your letter. The revisions in the submitted manuscript are explained as listed below.

Questions for General Evaluation

-Existing background on the subject has been enhanced as you suggested. The views of international organizations are contextualized in a short and concise manner by adding examples. The relevant changes have been made on the second page of the introduction and are written in red in the revision file.

- By making additions to the method as you suggested, it has been made more clear and understandable. We have marked the changes in the method in red.

- Additions have been made to the conclusion section in the article, making it more emphatic and reflecting the results better as you said.

Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-In line with the suggestions of the other reviewers, the title has been made more catchy and remarkable.

-The numbering in the bibliography has been carefully rechecked. Thank you very much for your contribution.

-Many thanks for your suggestion for making the article more understandable. The additions you mentioned has been made to the conclusion section.

- The article has been rechecked and improved for English.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript under review may be considered for publication after minor revisions as mentioned in the manuscript (in red).

The superscripts to depict the significance are not assigned to the values in the tables correctly. The larger value must have 'a' superscript.

The authors are advised to read the manuscript carefully and to use correct punctuation, where needed. The mistakes are mentioned in red.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The language of the manuscript is okay; however, it is recommended that authors must read the manuscript carefully to correct the mistakes of grammar and punctuation.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 4

Thank you very much for your contributions and corrections. Also, thank you very much for your time to review the manuscript in detail. We carefully considered your letter. The revisions in the submitted manuscript are explained as listed below.

Questions for General Evaluation

- As you suggest, in order making the discussion section more compelling, additions have been made and interpreted by comparing with the literature.

Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-We appreciate your careful warning. Significant superscripts have been rechecked by assigning them correctly to the values in the tables.

-The places you indicated in red in the file you sent have been corrected and checked again.

-The article has been rechecked and improved for English.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for the revised version of the manuscript.

More pictorial data can be included in the manuscript rather than tables. 

The English language can also be improved.

The detailed protocols for the methods should be explained.

The English language can also be improved.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for your contributions and corrections. Also, thank you very much for your time to review the manuscript in detail. We carefully considered your letter. The revisions in the submitted manuscript are explained as listed below.

Questions for General Evaluation

- By making additions to the method as you suggested, it has been made more clear and understandable.

- We have worked on the results section in detail. We present our explanation on this subject in detail below.

Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. We appreciate you offering this valuable suggestion for pictorial data rather than tables. The authors came together and held a meeting regarding the revision you mentioned. We thought in detail which of the tables we could present as pictorial data and discussed the alternatives. We agreed that Table 3 is the most suitable table for presentation in this way. We worked on this in detail. However, we think that this version, which we present in table format, allows us to draw attention to more data in a short and concise manner, and will help us reach more readers as the overall article is less eye-tiring. We hope that we have succeeded in fulfilling your suggestion with this figure, as Figure 1, prepared in accordance with your suggestion, presents the most core essence of the article.
2. The article has been re-checked for English fluency and grammatical correctness.
3. Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. By adding detailed information to the method section of the article, readers have been provided with detailed information about the applied protocol.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf