Next Article in Journal
Digital Anthropometry: A Systematic Review on Precision, Reliability and Accuracy of Most Popular Existing Technologies
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Dyslipidemia in Periodontitis
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Strategies to Reduce the Rate of Plate Waste in Hospitalized Patients: A Scoping Review

Nutrients 2023, 15(2), 301; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15020301
by Sangeetha Manimaran 1, Nurul Huda Razalli 2,*, Zahara Abdul Manaf 2, Arimi Fitri Mat Ludin 3 and Suzana Shahar 2
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Nutrients 2023, 15(2), 301; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15020301
Submission received: 31 October 2022 / Revised: 22 December 2022 / Accepted: 31 December 2022 / Published: 6 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Nutrition and Public Health)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please  find  the  comment in  the attached  file 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you so much for your very careful review of our paper, and for the comments, corrections and suggestions that ensued. A major revision of the paper has been carried out to take all of them into account. And in the process, we believe the paper has been significantly improved. Below I attached with the cover letter and comments for your review in PDF format. Kindly, thank you so much again for your time and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is interesting for the field, and I congratulate the authors for their initiative. However, in order to be published, some revisions and additions are necessary.

I have attached the PDF manuscript with the comments and mentions in the text.

1.The abstract should be formulated, because it does not sufficiently reveal the conclusions. (see the comment from Conclusions)

2. The reference [1] is not well listed in the list of References.

3. It is not advisable to mention the names (initials) of the reviewers/authors. 

4. The figures are original? It have to be mentioned. 

5. The Conclusions are very poorly detailed, almost not revealing the content of the manuscript. It must be reformulated and expanded.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you so much for your very careful review of our paper, and for the comments, corrections and suggestions that ensued. A major revision of the paper has been carried out to take all of them into account. And in the process, we believe the paper has been significantly improved. Below I attached with the cover letter and comments for your review in PDF format. Kindly, thank you so much again for your time and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

You analyzed and solved my observations responsibly and efficiently. I congratulate you for this new scientific work!

Back to TopTop