Dear Dr. Gallegos, 

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 Feb 24 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,

Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin

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 you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Below, I have outlined the revisions needed:

1. Introduction

• Refine the introductory section to ensure clarity and provide a comprehensive understanding of the study's scope.
• Emphasize the study's importance for child development from physical and mental perspectives.
• Clearly outline the unique contribution of the research to existing literature.

2. Methodology

• Expand on the research methodology, ensuring transparency in design and execution.
• Include a detailed explanation of the quality assessment tool, particularly distinctions between high, medium, and low quality levels.
• Justify the use of the PRISMA model and ensure its implementation is clearly articulated.
• Address the influence of socio-economic factors on the methodology.

3. Results

• Supplement the results with improved visual representations, such as diagrams, tables, or charts.
• Add clear captions and detailed explanations for all tables and figures, ensuring that abbreviations are defined where necessary.
• Discuss regional disparities in findings and their implications.

4. Discussion

• Expand the discussion to include an in-depth analysis of results, mechanisms, and implications.
• Address the limitations of the study, including socio-economic factors and regional variations.
• Clarify the innovation and contributions of the study in advancing food and nutrition education.
• Discuss potential global applications or comparisons to other regions beyond Australia.

5. Recommendations and Future Research

• Provide actionable recommendations for improving food and nutrition education in schools.
• Suggest future research directions to address gaps identified in this study, such as the socio-economic and regional disparities.

6. Technical Revisions

• Revise for technical errors, including consistent formatting and explanation of abbreviations.
• Ensure that references are standardized and adhere to the required format.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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: Suggestion 1: Strengthen the Elaboration of Research Methodology

Suggestion 2: Augment the Explanation of the Quality Assessment Tool

Suggestion 3: Deepen the Analysis of Regional Disparities in Research Findings

Suggestion 4: Supplement the Visual Representation of Research Results

Suggestion 5: Elaborate on the Research Limitations Regarding the Influence of Socio-economic Factors

Suggestion 6: Enhance the Depth and Breadth of the Discussion Section

Suggestion 7: Clarify the Innovation and Contribution of the Research

Suggestion 8: Standardize the Format of References

Suggestion 9: Increase the Prospectiveness and Recommendations of the Research

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is focused on the problematic of food and nutrition in Australian schools. The manuscript has got a review study. The text is divided into the chapters and subchapters typical for this kind of study. The authors presented very brief introduction, but there are provided all needed kinds of information, which are necessary for the understanding of the study. The text is written in understandable form and it is written by scientific language. The problematic of nutrition, mainly in primary level of education is very important for the development of child from physical and also from mental side. Authors showed all these kinds of information.

The review analysis is very carefully presented. Authors used internationally reputable and established model called PRISMA. The kinds of information from the review study are appropriately added by tables and figures (pictures).

The text seems little bit long and, but these kinds of studies are typical for longer text. I have got only some comments of minor character, which are presented below:

- the first comment has got a technical character, but it is important for the correct version of manuscript. Please read carefully the whole text again and revise some technical mistakes, for example add the explanation of abbreviations under all tables.

- table 3 included quality levels, so please add explanation in the methodology chapter, what is the difference between high, medium and low quality.

To sum up, the text is on high level, after incorporation of comments, it could be prepared for publication purposes.

I hope my comments are helpful

Reviewer #3: Excellent paper.

The authors have described a well-developed methodology in detail.

There is also supported material provided.

It is a well-written and sound paper, nicely presented to the reader.

Useful not only for Australian readers but also to international ones.

**********

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: No

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Suggestions.doc

School food and nutrition environments in Australian primary schools: A scoping review

PONE-D-24-52372R1

Dear Mr/Ms. Gallegos,

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,

Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: