Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review very well-writen this manuscript. I would like to command the authors on the rigorous conduct of this scoping review, as well as emphasize the importance of this work on implications for policy, practice, and research. I only have a few minor comments below for the authors to address. Otherwise, happy to see this manuscript be accepted for publication.

 

Intro: Move 3rd sentence to first sentence

 

Line 49: diets should be diet

 

Line 66-67: unclear

 

Line 70: statistically should be statistical

 

Line 86: what does reduce serving size of menus mean?

 

Line 157: indicate how many authors were involved in data extraction

 

Line 167-168: indicate when thematic synthesis vs narrative analysis was used. Did the authors mean to indicate themes instead of categories in line 168?

 

Compared with Step 2, it is unclear how Step 1 was completed and who was involved in the search, screening, and data extraction

 

Line 214: voluntary should be voluntarily

 

Line 278: an should be and

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful comments which have undoublty strengthen the manuscript. 

Find attached a pdf that provides a point-by-point response. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer Blind Comments to Author:

This paper tried to examine the topics of restaurant menu labeling policies regarding cost-effective strategies to promote healthy diets and prevent obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It must have taken much effort to conduct the research but its contribution is not clear to readers. In specific, it should be improved in the following ways to be published.

1. Major comments

(1) Contribution
This research is based on a two-step scoping review to map and describe the effect of restaurant menu labeling policies with four databases (i.e., PubMed, CINHAL/EBSCO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) for peer-reviewed studies and gray-literature sources in English and Spanish (2000-2020) . That is, please discuss more about the contribution of this research and explain how the research findings can be used to give values to different area in restaurant industry.

(2) Methods
Please include more information about the survey process. Besides, on secondary data results also needed to improve for more detail explains, in this currents analyses, it is still lack of solid explanations.

(3) Theoretical and managerial implications
Please extend the discussions in this paper and link them to the contribution. In this paper, the theoretical and managerial implications are linked to the empirical findings. Instead of linking to the empirical results, it is recommended to emphasize what the previous studies could not identify but this paper did.

2. Minor comments
(1) Please update most up-to-date citations of references in this paper.

(1) Please provide information about 'the structure of the remainder of the paper' at the end of introduction part.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful comments and effords towards improving our manuscript. We have been able to incorporate appropriate changes from your suggestions highlighted within the manuscript.

Find attached a PDF document that provides a point-by-point to your coments. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf