The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on College Students’ Food Choice Motives in Greece
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study is interesting. But the statistical analysis done is not sufficient. Only chi-square test is used to test the association between students’ motives on food consumption. The questionaire developed is quite good also the sample size is sufficiently large. Other nonparametric tests e.g. Kruskal Wallis Test may be used. The hypothesis of other dimensions may also be tested e.g. difference in percentage between two specific categories or so.
A complete analysis from different perspective may be more useful for the readers to understand the study. As we have already passed sufficient time post pandemic, it is usual that almost everything returned to the normal situation but to say it with sufficient evidence, proper analysis is to be made.
The main flaw in the paper is on the discussion part. The results are not explained properly.
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The author investigated the food choice motives changes due to the COVID-19 to 1017 college students by the questionnaire survey through Google platform conducted in January to February 2023 in Greece and analyzed with the use of statistical tools, combined cross and Chi-square tests. Unfortunately, I believe the existing research paper format is poorly organized for publication in MDPI's sustainability journal. After major revisions, I think the material might be accepted for publication in this journal. But first, allow me to provide the authors with some general and specific feedback.
General comments: Using combined cross and Chi-square tests, this study looked into the food choices and preferences of college students living in quarantine and socially distancing for almost two years and now experiencing everyday life. I don't think the article's current format is appropriate for publication in MDPI's sustainability journal.
Specific comments:
- Introduction: The author should rewrite this part with appropriate references.
- The literature study part (1.2) should be rewritten or might be included in the introduction part.
- Please rewrite and fix the formatting in the results section (lines 198-229).
- The author should rewrite the discussion part with appropriate references and discuss the results point by point.
- The author didn't follow the journal's guidelines for referencing the articles.
The language and style of English must be extensively adjusted.
Author Response
see attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments to authors
Title
The title is concise and informative but still needs improvement to produce a good sound.
Keywords
Please add some strong key words
Abstract
Complete
Introduction
Complete
Materials and methods
This portion provided a sufficient detailed methodology followed.
Results and Discussion
Results are clear concise and well presented. Some grammatical mistakes are present that need improvement.
References
Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list. Follow the general guideline of the Journal for references.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
see attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have to some extent addressed the comments.
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Many thanks to the authors for the substantial improvement of the manuscript. Still, there are some points that need to be addressed.
- In the abstract (lines 8–9), please rewrite these sentences.
- In lines 95–106, please write in plain language.
- The discussion part still needs to be improved.
- Please follow the guidelines in the reference section, particularly the abbreviated journal name.
- The level of English needs to be improved.
- The level of English needs to be improved.
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
