Dear Dr. Makori,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 10 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

António Raposo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“We acknowledge funding from Bright future “

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that “Data cannot be shared publicly, is available upon request”

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

5. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I am grateful for the opportunity to review this study, which addresses a topic of great relevance to public health and child nutrition. Assessing the school food environment and its impact on the eating habits of school-age children is essential for formulating effective food security and nutrition policies. The manuscript presents a relevant approach, with empirical data and a pertinent discussion, but there are points that could be improved to strengthen the scientific quality of the article.

It is recommended to expand the final section of the abstract to emphasize how the findings can inform future policies and interventions.

The introduction contextualizes the problem well, addressing the influence of the school food environment on child health and mentioning the triple burden of malnutrition. However, there is a lack of more recent and robust references to support the arguments. In addition, the justification for the study could be strengthened with a more in-depth discussion of gaps in the literature and the specific relevance of the Tanzanian context.

The justification for the choice of the four schools could be more detailed. In addition, the statistical methodology employed in the data analysis is not sufficiently explained; it is recommended to include information on the statistical tests used and the criteria for statistical significance.

The discussion lacks a more critical approach to the study's limitations. The comparison with international studies is limited and could be expanded to better contextualize the results within the global panorama of child nutrition. In addition, the discussion could go into more detail about viable solutions for improving the school food environment in Tanzania.

It is suggested to add in the conclusion section practical guidelines for policy interventions and food education programs, as well as suggesting future studies to further explore the issues raised.

Reviewer #2: The study on the school food environment in Temeke Municipality provides insights into the dietary habits of school-age children and highlights several critical issues.

The finding that 62.5% of schools partially implemented feeding guidelines is concerning. The lack of full compliance suggests a systemic issue in prioritizing children's health and nutrition. The study could benefit from exploring the barriers to full implementation, such as resource limitations or lack of training.

The lack of dining halls and functional kitchens in most schools raises questions about the feasibility of promoting healthy eating. Dining facilities are essential for encouraging communal eating and improving the overall dining experience. The absence of these facilities suggests a neglect of the physical environment necessary for healthy eating practices.

While the paper reports that 55.6% of food and beverages are classified as healthy, the prevalence of popular unhealthy items, such as samosas and fried snacks, indicates a significant issue. The high consumption of unhealthy options raises concerns about the overall dietary quality available to students. A more detailed analysis of the types of healthy foods offered and their accessibility would strengthen the findings.

The low level of knowledge regarding food safety and nutrition among food vendors, with only 22.0% aware of national food guidelines, is alarming. This lack of awareness could lead to unsafe food practices and poor nutritional offerings. The work could be enhanced by recommending specific training programs for vendors to improve their understanding of food safety and nutrition.

The comparison of calorie portions with the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) reveals a concerning trend of insufficient caloric intake among students. However, the study lacks a deeper exploration of how these low percentages affect the overall health and academic performance. It would be beneficial to assess the long-term implications of such dietary inadequacies.

While the work highlights the need for interventions, it does not propose specific strategies or frameworks for implementing changes. A more constructive approach would involve outlining potential interventions, such as policy changes at the school level, community engagement, or partnerships with health organizations.

The study is based on a small sample size across four schools. The findings may not be generalizable to other regions or municipalities. A broader study could provide more comprehensive data on school food environments across different contexts.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript is well written and comprehensive with significant findings

However, there are few comments for clarifications in the methodology part

What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the respondents?

How many vendors were involved in the pre-testing of interview instrument?

Any sample size calculation performed to achieve good power of study?

Any description and psychometric analysis of the instrument used?

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  M. João Lima

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Assessing the School Food Environment and its Role on Healthy Eating Behaviors among School Age Children in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

PONE-D-25-08254R1

Dear Dr. Makori,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

António Raposo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: This version of the article shows a significant improvement, as evidenced by more fluid writing, with some less dense and more explicit details. It is therefore publishable.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: Yes:  M. João Reis Lima

**********