Verified Rigor RecordRigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Growth and tuber yield responses of potato ( Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties to seed tuber size in northwest highlands of Ethiopia · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14586

Name: Verified Rigor Record — Growth and tuber yield responses of potato ( Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties to seed tuber size in northwest highlands of Ethiopia · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14586
Item: Growth and tuber yield responses of potato ( Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties to seed tuber size in northwest highlands of Ethiopia · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14586
Rating: 76
Author: Αlpha¹

Paper source

Read full text

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · July 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

WARN

Warnings to address · Interventional Study

Eight dimensions — click a segment for details

Critical

High-priority

Model-reported confidence: moderateReviewer agreement: moderateEngine: 7.6.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No reported statistical tests were found to recompute.
No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

The paper presents a well-structured agronomic field trial, but has several reporting gaps that limit its reproducibility and transparency: randomization method, power analysis, and outlier handling are not described; statistical reporting lacks exact p-values, effect sizes, and assumption verification; and the data availability statement is vague. The copyedit pass identified minor but correctable errors in units and table formatting.

All 8 rigor dimensions were evaluated independently by 3 reviewers. Two reviewers agreed on most dimensions; the third was more generous (e.g., on study design and reporting transparency), but the synthesized ratings reflect a conservative, evidence-weighted consensus. Ethical approvals and several sub-criteria were marked 'not applicable' for this plant field trial. The statistics verification component found no tests with interpretable test statistics to recompute; threshold-only p-values were not machine-verifiable.

12 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

3 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Rigor

Eight Dimensions2 pass · 5 warn

12 major claims2 partial10 supported

The introduction cites multiple references to establish the importance of potato for food security and the yield gap in Ethiopia. It acknowledges prior work on seed tuber size and variety effects, and identifies the gap that smallholder farmers use a wide range of seed sizes without optimization. The study objectives follow logically from this premise. Limitations of prior research are implicitly addressed by the study design, though not explicitly discussed.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior work on potato yield gaps and the role of seed tuber size, and provides a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“According to Simon [] and Zeleke et al. [] seed tuber size and variety of potatoes significantly influenced the performance of potatoes both in terms of quantity and quality.”

direct quote[Introduction, last sentence]

“The present study was therefore initiated with the aim of improving the income and enhancing the food security of smallholder farmers by identifying the optimum seed tuber size for economical production of potato.”

absence[Introduction]

Limitations of prior research are not explicitly discussed.

WARNReviewer 2· 75% conf

Prior work is cited and the premise is established, but the limitations of prior research are not discussed.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 1-3]

“According to Simon [] and Zeleke et al. [] seed tuber size and variety of potatoes significantly influenced the performance of potatoes both in terms of quantity and quality.”

direct quote[Introduction, last paragraph]

absence[Introduction]

Limitations of prior research not discussed

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The study clearly establishes its scientific foundation by citing prior work on potato production challenges, yield gaps, and the importance of seed tuber size, and logically links this to its objectives.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 1-4]

“Using optimum-sized and disease free seed tuber is a prim prerequisite for successful production of potatoes.”

direct quote[Introduction, final paragraph]

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“The study notes that smallholder farmers use a wide size range without considering variety or conditions, implying this gap is addressed.”

The design is described as RCBD with factorial arrangement and three replications. However, the randomization method is not specified (e.g., random number generator or physical method). Blinding is not mentioned, which is acceptable for a field trial but should be noted. No a priori power analysis or sample size calculation is reported. Inclusion/exclusion criteria for plots or plants are not pre-specified. Outlier handling is not addressed. Controls are not applicable as this is a comparative variety trial. Independent replication is not reported. The study does distinguish between biological replicates (plants) and technical replicates (plots), but the distinction is implicit.

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisNOT REPORTED

blinding levelsNOT REPORTED

outlier handlingNOT REPORTED

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionNOT REPORTED

randomization methodNOT REPORTED

replicate distinctionINADEQUATE

independent replicationNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

The study uses a randomized complete block design with factorial arrangement, but lacks key details on randomization method, blinding, power analysis, and outlier handling.

Evidence

absence[Section 2.3]

Randomization method is not described.

absence[Section 2.3]

Blinding is not mentioned.

absence[Section 2.3]

No power analysis or sample size calculation is reported.

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

Design is adequately described for an agronomic field trial: RCBD, factorial, three replications. However, no power analysis, no pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria, no outlier handling, and no independent replication are reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, section 2.3]

“The treatments were laid down in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) in a factorial arrangement with three replications.”

absence[Materials and methods]

No power analysis

absence[Materials and methods]

No outlier handling, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or independent replication mentioned

PASSReviewer 3· 85% conf

The study uses a randomized complete block design with factorial arrangement and clearly describes treatment allocation, replicates, and pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria, but lacks explicit randomization method details, power analysis, or blinding.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.3, Treatments and experimental design]

“The treatments were laid down in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) in a factorial arrangement with three replications.”

direct quote[Section 2.3]

“The treatments consisted of four varieties of potatoes and three seed tuber sizes (small (31.5 ± 2.5 g), medium (57 ± 2.5 g) and large (77.5 ± 2.5 g).”

absence[Section 2.3, 2.6]

No explicit randomization method (e.g., random number table), power analysis, or outlier handling is reported.

The study reports the potato varieties used (Belete, Shonkolla, Gudanie, Local) with their source and characteristics. Seed tuber sizes are precisely defined with weight ranges. The experimental site is described with location, elevation, rainfall, and temperature. However, sex is not applicable for plants, and age/weight/health are not relevant in the same sense as for animals. Housing conditions are not applicable. Demographics are not applicable. The species and strain are clearly identified.

Sub-criteria

demographicsN/A

sex reportedN/A

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthN/A

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper adequately reports key biological variables for a plant field trial, including variety, seed tuber size, and site conditions.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.2]

“Improved varieties of potato namely Belete, Shonkolla, Gudanie and local variety (Key Dinch) were used as test crops. Belete and Gudanie varieties were released by Holetta Agricultural Research Centre in 2009 and 2006, respectively, while Shonkolla variety was released by Awassa Agricultural Research Center in 2005 [].”

direct quote[Section 2.3]

“The treatments consisted of four varieties of potatoes and three seed tuber sizes (small (31.5 ± 2.5 g), medium (57 ± 2.5 g) and large (77.5 ± 2.5 g).”

direct quote[Section 2.1]

“The experimental site is located at 11° 48' 370'' N latitude and 038° 07' 402'' E longitude with an elevation of 2790 m above sea level.”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

The study uses four potato varieties and reports species/strain/source adequately, but does not report any biological variables like sex, age, weight, or health status of the plant material beyond seed tuber size. Demographics (human) are not applicable. Plant biological variables (e.g. physiological age of seed tubers) are not reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, section 2.2]

“Improved varieties of potato namely Belete, Shonkolla, Gudanie and local variety (Key Dinch) were used as test crops. Belete and Gudanie varieties were released by Holetta Agricultural Research Centre... Shonkolla variety was released by Awassa Agricultural Research Center...”

paraphrase[Materials and methods, section 2.3]

“Seed tubers categorized by weight: small (31.5±2.5g), medium (57±2.5g), large (77.5±2.5g). No mention of physiological age or health status.”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

Potato variety (species/strain) and source are detailed, seed tuber size categories are precisely reported, and the study site conditions are described. Sex, age/weight/health of tubers are not applicable as these are plants.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.2]

“Improved varieties of potato namely Belete, Shonkolla, Gudanie and local variety ( Key Dinch ) were used as test crops.”

direct quote[Section 2.3]

“small (31.5 ± 2.5 g), medium (57 ± 2.5 g) and large (77.5 ± 2.5 g)”

direct quote[Section 2.4]

“Experimental plots were fertilized with NPS and urea at the rates of 180 and 176 kg ha −1 , respectively.”

The paper describes a field experiment on potato varieties. No human participants, animal subjects, or non-public identifiable data are involved. Therefore, IRB/ethics approval, informed consent, and IACUC statements are not required. Regulatory compliance is not applicable.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentN/A

irb ethics statementN/A

regulatory complianceN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 95% conf

The study involves field trials on potato plants, not human or animal subjects, so ethical approvals are not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract]

“Field experiment was conducted during the 2019 irrigation season to evaluate the growth and tuber yield responses of potato varieties in the highlands of Ethiopia.”

N/AReviewer 2· 95% conf

This is an agronomic field trial using potato plants; no human or animal subjects are involved. No ethics approval is required.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No human or animal subjects involved

N/AReviewer 3· 95% conf

This is a field experiment on potato plants using publicly available improved varieties and a local variety; no human participants, animals, or identifiable human data are involved. Ethics approval is not required.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract, Section 2.1]

“The experiment was conducted on farmer′s field in Sahrina kebele of Farta District, Northwest Ethiopia during the 2019 irrigation season.”

absence[All sections]

No ethics statement is present.

The potato varieties are identified with their sources. Seed tubers are described by size. Fertilizers (NPS, urea) are named but without manufacturer or catalog numbers. The statistical software is identified as SAS version 9.2, which is adequate. No antibodies, cell lines, or organisms requiring authentication are used. Mycoplasma testing is not applicable. Reagents are not applicable in the traditional sense, but fertilizers are mentioned without full identification. Software tools are identified with version.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedINADEQUATE

organisms identifiedADEQUATE

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

The paper identifies potato varieties and seed tubers, but lacks details on reagents, software version, and does not report authentication or mycoplasma testing (not applicable).

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.2]

“Belete and Gudanie varieties were released by Holetta Agricultural Research Centre in 2009 and 2006, respectively, while Shonkolla variety was released by Awassa Agricultural Research Center in 2005 [].”

direct quote[Section 2.6]

“The collected data of all parameters of potato were subjected to two-way Statistical Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using Statistical Analysis Software [] version 9.2.”

direct quote[Section 2.4]

“Experimental plots were fertilized with NPS and urea at the rates of 180 and 176 kg ha −1 , respectively [].”

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The paper identifies the plant varieties and their sources, and mentions the statistical software (SAS 9.2). However, key reagents like fertilizers (NPS, urea) are named but without manufacturer/source details, and no primer sequences, antibodies, cell lines, or mycoplasma testing are applicable. Software version is given, but no RRID or vendor URL.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, section 2.2]

“Improved varieties of potato namely Belete, Shonkolla, Gudanie and local variety (Key Dinch) were used as test crops. ... released by Holetta Agricultural Research Centre...”

direct quote[Materials and methods, section 2.4]

“Experimental plots were fertilized with NPS and urea at the rates of 180 and 176 kg ha-1, respectively.”

direct quote[Materials and methods, section 2.6]

“using Statistical Analysis Software [] version 9.2.”

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

Potato varieties are named but without RRIDs or accession details; seed tuber sources are not provided; fertilizers are named but without manufacturer or lot; basic statistical software is named (SAS 9.2) but no version or vendor URL. The study uses standard agronomic inputs, so many sub-criteria are not applicable, but the software identification is incomplete.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.2]

“Improved varieties of potato namely Belete, Shonkolla, Gudanie and local variety ( Key Dinch ) were used as test crops.”

direct quote[Section 2.4]

“Experimental plots were fertilized with NPS and urea at the rates of 180 and 176 kg ha −1 , respectively.”

direct quote[Section 2.6]

“Statistical Analysis Software [] version 9.2.”

The paper uses ANOVA and LSD for mean separation, which are named. P-values are reported as significance levels (e.g., P < 0.001, P < 0.01, P < 0.05) but exact p-values are not given for individual comparisons. Test assumptions (normality, homogeneity of variance) are not mentioned. Effect sizes and confidence intervals are not reported. The software (SAS 9.2) is identified. Data presentation includes tables with means and LSD values, but individual data points are not shown. Mathematical plausibility checks are not applicable due to continuous data and moderate sample sizes.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesINADEQUATE

effect sizes ciNOT REPORTED

data presentationINADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedNOT REPORTED

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

The paper names statistical tests and reports p-values, but lacks verification of test assumptions, exact p-values for all comparisons, and effect sizes with confidence intervals.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.6]

“The collected data of all parameters of potato were subjected to two-way Statistical Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using Statistical Analysis Software [] version 9.2. Whenever treatment effects were significant, mean separations were conducted using Least Significant Difference (LSD) depending on ANOVA results [].”

direct quote[Section 3.1.1]

“Variety (P < 0.001) and tuber size (P < 0.01) influenced days to 50% plant emergence of potato plants.”

absence[Section 2.6]

Test assumptions are not verified.

WARNReviewer 2· 75% conf

Statistical tests are named (ANOVA, LSD), and software is identified. However, test assumptions are not verified, effect sizes/confidence intervals are not reported, exact p-values are not given (only thresholds), and data presentation uses bar charts with SE bars but individual data points are not shown. No arithmetic implausibility detected.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, section 2.6]

“The collected data ... subjected to two-way Statistical Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using Statistical Analysis Software [] version 9.2. ... mean separations were conducted using Least Significant Difference (LSD) depending on ANOVA results.”

direct quote[Results section, various tables]

“*** = very highly significant at P < 0.001; ** = highly significant at P < 0.01; * = significant at P < 0.05”

absence[Materials and methods]

Assumptions not verified

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

Statistical tests (ANOVA, LSD) are named and software (SAS 9.2) is identified. Exact p-values are reported for main effects and interactions, but no effect sizes or confidence intervals are given. Assumptions (normality, homogeneity) are not reported, and data presentation uses summary tables with LSD letters but no individual data points or error bars with definitions, partly acceptable for field trial reporting.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.6]

“Whenever treatment effects were significant, mean separations were conducted using Least Significant Difference (LSD) depending on ANOVA results.”

direct quote[Tables 1, 2, 3, 4]

“*** = very highly significant at P < 0.001; ** = highly significant at P < 0.01; * = significant at P < 0.05”

absence[Results, Tables 1-4]

No effect sizes or confidence intervals are reported; assumptions not verified.

The data availability statement says 'Data will be made available on request,' which is reported_but_inadequate because it lacks a concrete mechanism or repository. No repository deposit or accession numbers are provided. No custom code is mentioned, so code sharing is not applicable.

Sub-criteria

code sharingN/A

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper includes a data availability statement but it is vague ('on request'), and no code is shared.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“Data will be made available on request.”

absence[Data availability statement]

No repository deposit or accession numbers are provided.

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

A data availability statement is present but vague ('on request'), with no repository or platform. No code was generated for this study.

Evidence

direct quote[End matter, Data availability statement]

“Data will be made available on request.”

WARNReviewer 3· 90% conf

A data availability statement is present but vague ('available on request' without a clear mechanism or repository). No code sharing is reported, and no repository deposit or accession numbers are provided.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“Data will be made available on request.”

absence[All sections]

No code or repository deposit is mentioned.

Methods are described in sufficient detail for replication, including experimental design, management, and data collection. Limitations are discussed in the conclusion. Conclusions are proportional to the evidence. A funding statement is provided (no funding). However, no trial registration is present (not required for this type of study). No reporting guideline (e.g., CONSORT) is referenced. All outcomes appear to be reported, but negative results are not explicitly highlighted.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

The paper provides detailed methods and discusses limitations, but lacks trial registration, reporting guideline adherence, and a funding statement (though it states no funding).

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2]

“The treatments were laid down in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) in a factorial arrangement with three replications. Each plot has 3.75 m width and 3 m length with gross and net plot areas of 11.25 m 2 and 5.4 m 2 , respectively.”

direct quote[Conclusion and recommendation]

“Optimization of seed tuber size is therefore necessary to increase productivity and profitability of potato.”

absence[Section 2]

No reporting guideline is referenced.

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

Methods are adequately described for replication, limitations are briefly discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are reported. However, no reporting guideline (e.g. STROBE) is referenced, and no trial registration is needed. Minor gaps: methods details are adequate but no checklist.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, sections 2.1-2.6]

“The experiment was conducted on farmer's field in Sahrina kebele of Farta District... with an elevation of 2790 m above sea level.”

direct quote[End matter]

“This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies... The authors declare no competing interests.”

absence[Manuscript]

No reporting guideline referenced

PASSReviewer 3· 85% conf

Methods are complete and reproducible. A funding statement and COI declaration are present. Limitations are discussed briefly in the context of dominance analysis. Conclusions are proportional to the results. No trial registration or reporting guideline is applicable. All outcomes mentioned in Methods are reported in Results.

Evidence

paraphrase[Sections 2.1-2.7]

“All experimental procedures are described in sufficient detail.”

direct quote[Funding statement, Declaration of interest's statement]

“The authors declare no competing interests.”

paraphrase[Results 3.1-3.3, Tables 1-4, Figures 1-4]

“Phenological, growth, yield, and economic parameters are all presented.”

16 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, typo, clarity.

Checked 36 references: 11 verified — 21 unresolved, 4 not checked.

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The published paper is substantively sound but has several methodological reporting gaps (no power analysis, no assumption verification, vague data availability) that limit reproducibility. An informed reader should interpret the statistical findings with caution, as exact p-values, effect sizes, and confidence intervals are not provided. A correction could include depositing the data in a repository and adding a supplementary file with effect sizes and assumption tests, but the core conclusions are unlikely to change.

1.
HIGHstatistics
Report exact p-values (e.g., P = 0.023) instead of thresholds (e.g., P < 0.05) in the Results text and tables.
Threshold-only p-values prevent readers from assessing the strength of evidence and violate common reporting standards.
2.
HIGHdata code
Deposit the raw data (e.g., plot-level measurements) in a public repository (e.g., Dryad, Figshare) with a DOI, and update the data availability statement accordingly.
The current vague 'on request' statement is not verifiable and does not meet journal data-sharing expectations.
3.
HIGHreporting
Add a statement on verification of ANOVA assumptions (e.g., Shapiro-Wilk test for normality, Levene's test for homogeneity of variance) in Section 2.6.
Readers cannot assess the validity of ANOVA and LSD results without knowing whether assumptions were met.
4.
HIGHreporting
Report effect sizes (e.g., eta-squared or Cohen's f) and 95% confidence intervals for main effects and interactions in the Results.
P-values alone do not indicate the magnitude or precision of effects; effect sizes and CIs are essential for interpretation.
5.
HIGHrigor
Describe the explicit randomization method used to assign treatments to plots (e.g., random number table or software) in Section 2.3.
Simply stating 'RCBD' does not confirm that assignment was truly random; specifying the method improves confidence in results.
6.
HIGHrigor
Add a pre-study power analysis or sample size justification in Section 2.3 to show that three replications are adequate to detect meaningful effects.
Without a power analysis, the reader cannot judge whether the study was adequately sized to detect the effects of interest.
7.
HIGHrigor
Add a statement on outlier handling (e.g., any exclusion criteria for extreme observations) in Section 2.6.
Transparent outlier management is needed to ensure that reported results are not influenced by arbitrary exclusion.
8.
HIGHrigor
Report the physiological age or storage history of the seed tubers, as this can affect emergence and yield, in Section 2.2.
Seed tuber physiological age is a known biological variable that can confound results if unreported.
9.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Correct the unit '12.12 t h −1' in the Abstract to '12.12 t ha −1' for consistency with the rest of the paper.
Inconsistent units can confuse readers and suggest sloppy reporting.
10.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Correct the elevation range '1600–280 m.a.s.l' in Section 2.2 to '1600–2800 m.a.s.l'.
The missing digit makes the range physically implausible for potato cultivation.
11.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Correct the LSD value in Table 4 from '4.4.7' to '4.47' (or the correct value from the analysis).
An extra decimal point in a statistical value is a clear typo that undermines confidence in the table.
12.
MEDIUMrigor
Provide justification for the chosen seed tuber size cutoffs (small/medium/large) in Section 2.3, linking them to local farming practices or published recommendations.
Arbitrary thresholds reduce generalizability; justification helps readers assess the practical relevance of the study.
13.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a section discussing study limitations (e.g., single season/location, lack of independent replication) in the Discussion or Conclusion.
Readers need to understand the scope and limits of the findings to apply them appropriately.
14.
LOWreporting
Consider referencing a relevant reporting guideline (e.g., CONSORT extension for field trials) in the Methods.
Following a guideline improves completeness and might be requested by reviewers.
15.
LOWcopyedit
Replace 'prim prerequisite' with 'prime prerequisite' in the Introduction.
Correcting a typographical error improves professionalism.

Full text (36,622 chars)Analyzed: Jul 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →