Differences in Perceived Stress and Depression among Weight (Dis)Satisfied Midwestern College Students during COVID-19
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I realize that great work and time have been devoted to this paper. It has a lot of strengths, but I think that some changes should be recommended.
Title: the title is too long. Please, try to change it to better inform the readers about the relationships between the variables that you test and also inform them about the quality of your sample, reducing its length.
Abstract:
Also, the abstract includes statistical values that are not necessary. Moreover, try to exclude abbreviations from the abstract.
Keywords: it is better to enlist your keywords alphabetically. Do not use keywords already captured in the title of the manuscript.
Introduction
The literature revision has some references that are too old (i.e.: 2004). It is ok having 49 references but you could update your gender's literature review. Moreover, most of the constructs that will be assessed are not fully presented or synthesized in the introduction. I think that a bit more explanation of each construct is necessary in order to justify the research.
Methodology
The Instruments or Questionnaires section is a bit incomplete. If you can, please inform me about previous studies where the same instrument has been used and the reliability obtained in that research.
Results
You only compare your subjects as two groups, weight satisfied vs. weight dissatisfied. And you found statistically significant differences.
But, using your data, you could refine your analyses.
For instance, using Binary logistic regression models could prove the relationship between a set of predictors and a binary response variable. A binary response has only two possible values, such as win and lose.
Use a binary regression model to understand how changes in the predictor values are associated with changes in the probability of an event occurring.
Results
Throughout the paper, but mostly in the results section, there are many abbreviations. This renders it too difficult for readers to understand the content.
Discussion:
Finally, a section related to limitations, future lines of investigation, and the principal contributions of the research could be attractive. Your paper has a lot of relevant implications for educators, psychologists, society, and policymakers, but you need to elaborate more on this topic.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you for your time and consideration of our manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
While this is a well-written manuscript, I don't see the point of yet another descriptive set of data. You have a large enough subject population to try to really understand what is going on. You have also used great instruments to truly get an understanding of what is going on. While your T-tests, chi-square and ANOVAs provide limited information they do not account for the confounding variables in the data that could influence your outcome variables. I would highly recommend re-running the analyses.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you for your time and consideration of our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate the authors adding the logistic regression analysis to this manuscript. Can you please provide the logistic regression results in a table. Also how do the results of the logistic regression change your interpretations of the results? You seem to still rely on the ANOVA/T-test and Chi-square results interpretations in your discussion section. There are some very interesting findings from your description of the logistic regression results.
Author Response
Thank you for your time and review of our revised manuscript to help improve the quality of the work. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
