How transparent is our study?
While I agree that our meta-analysis has limited coverage, I do not accept the criticisms relating to publication bias and, in particular, transparency at the peer-review stage. The conclusion is also based on all alternative assessments showing no evidence for publication bias, and both the raw data and code are submitted for revision. Owing to such transparency, most issues raised in the comment have been carefully evaluated by reviewers, who (i) repeated the literature search stepwise, (ii) evaluated the influence of missing words, (iii) suggested to dig into the data for a diet effect, and (iv) assessed the effects of combining fully factorial with non-fully factorial experiments. They have identified the limitations, but are enthusiastic about the detailed picture provided and the opportunity to weigh empirical evidence with theories (please refer to the point-to-point reply of Yin et al. (2019) in the supplementary files).
With many thanks to Sánchez-Tójar et al., I hope these discussions will promote open science practices, methodological development and maturation of meta-analysis research, which bridges empirical evidence with theories and enlightens future explorations.