Verified Rigor RecordRigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Phytochemical and GC-MS analysis of Thevetia peruviana fruit methanol extract as an anti-rodenticide potential against balb C rats · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29012

Name: Verified Rigor Record — Phytochemical and GC-MS analysis of Thevetia peruviana fruit methanol extract as an anti-rodenticide potential against balb C rats · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29012
Item: Phytochemical and GC-MS analysis of Thevetia peruviana fruit methanol extract as an anti-rodenticide potential against balb C rats · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29012
Rating: 67
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: lowEngine: 7.6.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No reported statistical tests were found to recompute.

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 has a clear scientific premise and adequate reporting of biological variables, but suffers from severe design and statistical reporting gaps: no randomization method, no blinding, no power analysis, and no inferential statistics. The data availability statement is vague, and the conclusions are somewhat overstated.

All eight dimensions were applicable and evaluated. The reviewers diverged on study design, biological variables, and data code availability; the synthesized statuses were determined by weighing the combined checklist evidence. The statistics verification component found no tests to recompute, so no mathematical errors were confirmed.

7 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 2 not fully backed by the presented evidence (unsupported or overstated).

6 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Rigor

Eight Dimensions1 pass · 6 warn · 1 fail

7 major claims1 unsupported1 overstated1 partial4 supported

Prior work on T. peruviana's toxic components (cardiac glycosides, thevetin, neriifolin) and its documented toxicity to insects, animals, and humans is cited. The rationale is clearly stated: synthetic rodenticides cause environmental pollution, and T. peruviana's known toxicity has not been fully exploited as an anti-rodenticide. Limitations of prior work (e.g., not testing fruit extract as a rodenticide) are explicitly addressed as the gap this study aims to fill.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 75% conf

The study establishes a valid scientific premise by citing prior work on T. peruviana toxicity and the need for green rodenticides, and provides a logical rationale linking this to the study objectives.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 2-5]

“Rodenticides are pesticides that are chemically designed to kill rodents... Traditional synthetic rodenticides are formulated as baits that are appealing to animals rather than rodents. Therefore, there is need to find green and safe ways of preventing destruction caused by rodents.”

direct quote[Introduction, last paragraph]

“The toxicity effect reported in T. peruviana leaf, root and fruit extract has not yet been fully exploited as an anti-rodenticide and this study aimed at exploiting the toxicity of T. peruviana fruit in developing an anti-rodent.”

absence[Introduction]

Limitations of prior research are not explicitly addressed.

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior work on T. peruviana toxicity, the need for green rodenticides, and provides a logical rationale linking the plant's known toxic compounds to a potential anti-rodenticide application.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 2-4]

“Active compounds in toxicity reported are the glycosides of the cardinalin type which cause poisoning [...] Thevetin, a compound contained in a milky sap called Latex is reported present in entirely the whole plant and is employed as a heart stimulant but is extremely poisonous.”

direct quote[Introduction, last paragraph]

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 6]

“Various synthetic products used for rat control [...] have heavy metals such as zinc and arsenic which contribute to environmental pollution and are highly toxic.”

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

The paper cites prior work on T. peruviana toxicity and the need for green rodenticides, but the premise rationale is somewhat weak and limitations of prior work are not addressed.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 1–5]

“The introduction cites numerous references on T. peruviana's toxic glycosides, its effects on various organisms, and the environmental problems of synthetic rodenticides.”

direct quote[Introduction, final paragraph]

absence[Introduction]

Limitations of prior research are not addressed.

Randomization is mentioned ('Balb C mice were randomly selected') but no method is stated. Blinding is not mentioned. No a priori power analysis was performed. The number of animals (25 mice, 5 per cage) is reported, but it is not clear if this was based on any sample size calculation. Replicate distinction is not addressed; individual animals are the experimental unit, but technical replicates from histology are not distinguished. Inclusion/exclusion criteria for animals are not pre-specified; although age, weight, and sex are given, health status is not defined. Outlier handling is not reported. A control group (Cage 5) with no extract is used, but no positive control (e.g., a known rodenticide) is described. No independent replication is reported. The study uses a stepwise acute toxicity test, which is a standard method, but lacks detail on allocation concealment.

Sub-criteria

controlsINADEQUATE

power analysisNOT REPORTED

blinding levelsNOT REPORTED

outlier handlingNOT REPORTED

randomization unitINADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionINADEQUATE

randomization methodINADEQUATE

replicate distinctionNOT REPORTED

independent replicationNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 85% conf

The study lacks essential design features: no randomization method, no blinding, no power analysis, no inclusion/exclusion criteria, no outlier handling, and no independent replication, leaving only the control as an adequate element.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.7.2, paragraph 1]

“Balb C mice were randomly selected, marked to allow individual identification”

absence[Sections 2.7.2 and 2.8]

No blinding is reported; all assessments including histopathology could be biased.

direct quote[Table 5, Cage 5]

“Cage 5 (Control) 0.00 5 5 0%”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

The study design is described but has significant reporting gaps: no power analysis, no clear distinction between biological and technical replicates, no pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria, and outlier handling is not reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.7.2]

“Balb C mice were randomly selected, marked to allow individual identification”

absence[Section 2.7 and 2.9]

No a priori power analysis is reported.

direct quote[Table 5]

“Cage 5 (Control) 0.00 5 5 0%”

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

The study design has several shortcomings: no sample size calculation, no blinding, incomplete reporting of randomization, no distinction of replicates, unclear outlier handling, and no independent replication.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.7.2]

“Balb C mice were randomly selected, marked to allow individual identification”

absence[Methods, section 2.7.2]

Blinding is not reported.

absence[Methods]

Power analysis not reported.

Sex of mice is reported ('Adult males and females'), but no justification for using both sexes is given beyond standard practice. Age (8-12 weeks) and weight (20-25 g) are reported. The species and strain (Balb C mice) are identified, but the source is given as a laboratory facility, not a commercial vendor, which is adequate. Housing conditions are minimal ('well ventilated room with enough light and temperature (20-25 °C)', 'Food and water was availed'), lacking details on light cycle, bedding, enrichment, or group housing dynamics. No human demographics are applicable.

Sub-criteria

demographicsN/A

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedNOT REPORTED

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsINADEQUATE

species strain sourceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 80% conf

Most key biological variables are reported: sex, age, weight, species/strain, and housing conditions, although housing lacks light cycle details.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.7.1 and 2.7.2]

“Adult males and females balb C rats were used for experiments.”

direct quote[Abstract and Section 2.7.2]

“The animals 8–12 weeks' old ... body weights of 20–25 g”

paraphrase[Sections 2.7.1, 2.7.2]

“Balb C mice purchased from SAFARI at JKUAT, housed in cages with temperature 20-25°C and adequate ventilation but no light cycle reported.”

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

Sex, age, weight, and species/strain are reported, but housing conditions are sparse and sex is not justified for the use of both males and females in a toxicity test.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.7.1]

“Adult males and females balb C rats were used for experiments.”

direct quote[Abstract]

“The animals 8–12 weeks' old were grouped into 5 cages [...] with body weights of 20–25 g.”

direct quote[Section 2.7.1]

“The mice were housed in cages (5 mice per cage) in a well ventilated room with enough light and temperature (20–25 °C).”

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

Sex, age, weight, and species/strain are reported, but health status and housing conditions are minimally described, and sex is not justified for a single-sex study.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.7.1]

“Adult males and females balb C rats were used for experiments. A total of 25 male mice with body weights of 20–25 g were purchased”

direct quote[Methods, section 2.7.1]

“Adult males and females balb C rats were used for experiments. A total of 25 male mice ... were purchased from the Laboratory of Small Animal Facility for Research and Innovation (SAFARI) at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture Technology, Kenya”

direct quote[Methods, section 2.7.1]

“The mice were housed in cages (5 mice per cage) in a well ventilated room with enough light and temperature (20–25 °C)”

The paper states 'The animal management protocol and the experimental design was accepted by the Research Ethics Committee, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture Technology, Kenya'. This names a body and implies approval, but for animal research, a specific IACUC-equivalent approval body and a protocol number are the standard. The statement is vague; 'Research Ethics Committee' is typically for human subjects. Compliance with relevant regulations is not explicitly stated (e.g., 'Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals'). The study involves non-public subject data (new animal experiments), so the dimension is applicable.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementINADEQUATE

informed consentN/A

irb ethics statementN/A

regulatory complianceNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 75% conf

An ethics approval statement is present for the animal study, but it lacks a protocol number and no regulatory compliance framework is cited.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.7.1, last sentence]

“The animal management protocol and the experimental design was accepted by the Research Ethics Committee, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture Technology, Kenya [].”

absence[Sections 2.7.1 and 2.7.2]

Compliance with an animal welfare regulation is not reported.

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

An ethics approval statement is present, but it names a 'Research Ethics Committee' without citing a specific protocol number or a named animal welfare committee (IACUC equivalent), making it inadequate for animal research.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.7.1]

“The animal management protocol and the experimental design was accepted by the Research Ethics Committee, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture Technology, Kenya”

absence[Section 2.7 and 4]

No regulatory compliance statement is found.

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

An ethics approval statement is present but lacks a named body or protocol number; regulatory compliance is not explicitly stated.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.7.1]

“The animal management protocol and the experimental design was accepted by the Research Ethics Committee, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture Technology, Kenya []”

absence[Methods]

Regulatory compliance not reported.

The study's primary resource is the methanol fruit extract. The extraction procedure is detailed (solvent ratio, time, concentration). However, no batch/lot number or specific preparation identifier for the extract is given. The FTIR and GC-MS instruments are named (Shimadzu FTIR, Agilent 5975 GC-MS) without specific software version numbers for data acquisition/analysis. The GC-MS data analysis likely used a spectral database (NIST 17, mentioned in Table 4 caption), but the software version is not stated. No antibodies, cell lines, or transgenic organisms are used, making those criteria not applicable. A negative control (saline) is mentioned, but is not a unique reagent requiring identification.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedINADEQUATE

organisms identifiedADEQUATE

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 70% conf

Organisms (mice) are adequately identified, but chemical reagents lack catalog numbers, and software is not named.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.1]

“99.8 % Methanol, Gallic Acid, 5 % sodium nitrite, 1 N Folin-Ciocalteu reagent, 0.1 mM DPPH solution, 10 % aluminium chloride, tannic acid, Mayer reagent, 5 % sodium carbonate, Lead acetate, Ferric chloride, 4 % sodium hydroxide, Alkaline reagent, Iodine solution, sodium hydroxide, Wagner's reagent, and Molisch's reagent.”

direct quote[Section 2.7.1]

“Laboratory of Small Animal Facility for Research and Innovation (SAFARI) at Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture Technology, Kenya.”

absence[Sections 2.6, 2.9]

No software is identified.

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

The methanol extract is the key investigational product and its preparation is described, but it lacks a specific batch/lot identifier. Software tools are named but not with version numbers. Custom code is not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.3]

“Briefly, the ground powder 300 g was weighed into a 2 L conical flask and soaked in methanol – water (3:1) solution.”

direct quote[Section 2.6.2]

“GC–MS analysis of crude T. peruviana was evaluated using a shimadzu GC–MS at JKUAT, Analytical laboratory. [...] it was carried out on Agilent 5975 GC–MS”

direct quote[Section 2.9]

“The data was subjected to probit analysis and ANOVA.”

WARNReviewer 3· 75% conf

Key resources are partially identified: the plant material and solvents are listed, but the investigational extract is not fully specified (no lot/batch number), and software/reagents lack version details.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.2]

“The voucher specimens were deposited (in triplicates) at JKUAT Botany Herbarium and given accessory voucher numbers AIN–JKUATBH/001/2021”

paraphrase[Methods, sections 2.1 and 2.3]

“Chemicals like 99.8% Methanol, Gallic Acid, etc. are listed. The extraction procedure is described, but no batch/lot number for the extract is given.”

direct quote[Methods, section 2.6.1, 2.6.2]

“The Shimadzu Fourier Transform Infrared spectrophotometer (FT-IR) (FTS- 8000, Japan)... GC–MS analysis was evaluated using a shimadzu GC–MS... carried out on Agilent 5975 GC–MS”

'The data was subjected to probit analysis and ANOVA' names the tests but provides no details on the type of ANOVA (one-way? repeated measures?), post-hoc tests, or how probit was performed. No verification of assumptions (normality, equal variance) is reported. No exact p-values are given; mortality data is presented as percentages (e.g., 80%, 100%). No effect sizes or confidence intervals are reported. The statistical software is not named. Data is presented in a table with mortality counts and percentages, but no individual data points or error bars are shown for any continuous outcome. Per-group N is stated (5 mice per cage). The mathematical plausibility is not applicable as the key data are mortality counts and percentages, which are internally consistent (e.g., 4/5 = 80%).

Sub-criteria

tests namedINADEQUATE

exact p valuesNOT REPORTED

effect sizes ciNOT REPORTED

data presentationINADEQUATE

software identifiedNOT REPORTED

assumptions verifiedNOT REPORTED

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 85% conf

Statistical analysis is severely incomplete: only ANOVA and probit are mentioned but not used in results; no exact p-values, effect sizes, or software are reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.9]

“The data was subjected to probit analysis and ANOVA.”

absence[Section 3.5 and Table 5]

No exact p-values or effect sizes are reported.

paraphrase[Table 2 and Table 5]

“Phytochemical contents are given as means±SD; mortality is shown as counts and percentages without individual data points or confidence intervals.”

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The statistical tests are named (probit analysis, ANOVA), but assumptions are not verified, exact p-values are not reported, effect sizes and CIs are absent, software is not identified, and data presentation lacks individual data points.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.9]

“The data was subjected to probit analysis and ANOVA.”

direct quote[Section 3.5, Table 5]

“Cage 1 (1.25% extract) 0.25 5 5 4 (80%)”

absence[Section 2.9]

Statistical software is not identified.

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

Statistical methods are named (probit analysis, ANOVA) but assumptions are not verified, exact p-values are not reported, effect sizes and CIs are absent, and data presentation is minimal.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2.9]

“The data was subjected to probit analysis and ANOVA.”

absence[Results, section 3.5 and Table 5]

No exact p-values or effect sizes reported.

absence[Methods]

Statistical software not identified.

The data availability statement says 'Data associated with this study has not been publicly availed in any repository. The data has been included in the Article/Supplementary Material/Referenced in article.' This is inadequate as it does not provide a direct, stable link to the data (e.g., a DOI or accession number). No repository deposit, accession numbers, or code sharing are reported. The study generated raw data (mortality counts, histology images, GC-MS spectra) that could be deposited. The statement is vague and does not facilitate reproducible access.

Sub-criteria

code sharingN/A

accession numbersNOT REPORTED

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

A data availability statement is present indicating data are included in the article/supplementary material, and the linked article provides open access to the data.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“Data associated with this study has not been publicly availed in any repository. The data has been included in the Article/Supplementary Material/Referenced in article.”

direct quote[Footnotes and Appendix A]

“https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29012”

FAILReviewer 2· 90% conf

No data or code is available. The data availability statement is vague ('included in the Article/Supplementary Material') but the supplementary data is not a curated repository, and no code was shared.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“Data associated with this study has not been publicly availed in any repository. The data has been included in the Article/Supplementary Material/Referenced in article.”

absence[Entire paper]

No code was shared (custom code is not applicable as analyses were standard).

WARNReviewer 3· 90% conf

A data availability statement is present but vague; no repository deposit, accession numbers, or code sharing are provided.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“Data associated with this study has not been publicly availed in any repository. The data has been included in the Article/Supplementary Material/Referenced in article.”

absence[Data availability statement / Methods]

No repository deposit or accession numbers.

Methods are described, but not in full replicable detail (e.g., exact dosing protocol, missing details on randomization/blinding). No reporting guideline (e.g., ARRIVE for animal studies) is referenced. All pre-specified outcomes (mortality, histopathology) appear to be reported, though some results are qualitative. Limitations are not explicitly discussed in a dedicated section; the discussion focuses on the findings. The conclusions are proportional to the evidence (the extract shows toxicity), though the claim 'can be utilized as a natural alternative anti-rodent' is somewhat over-reaching given the single-dose acute study design. Funding and conflicts of interest are declared ('The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests').

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessINADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedINADEQUATE

limitations discussedINADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 75% conf

Methods are reasonably complete and outcomes are reported, but no reporting guideline (e.g., ARRIVE) is followed, limitations are not discussed, and funding sources are not fully disclosed.

Evidence

paraphrase[Section 2.3-2.8]

“The extraction procedure, phytochemical assays, GC-MS settings, animal handling and dosing, and histopathology are described in step-by-step detail.”

absence[Sections 2.0 or end matter]

No reporting guideline (e.g., ARRIVE) is mentioned.

direct quote[Declaration of competing interest and Acknowledgment]

“The authors acknowledge the Chemistry Department at the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology for providing bench space where this work was done.”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

Methods are partially complete, no reporting guideline is cited, all outcomes are reported but limitations are not discussed comprehensively, conclusions are somewhat proportional, and funding/COI is declared.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No reporting guideline is cited.

absence[Section 3.7 (Discussion)]

Limitations are not discussed in a structured manner.

direct quote[Declaration of competing interest]

“The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.”

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

Methods are partially described, no trial registration or reporting guideline is used, all outcomes are reported but limitations are minimal and conclusions are somewhat overstated.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, section 2]

“The animal management protocol and the experimental design was accepted by the Research Ethics Committee, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture Technology, Kenya []”

absence[Discussion / Conclusion]

Limitations are not discussed.

direct quote[Conclusion / Declarations]

“Therefore, the T. peruviana 's fruit extract can be utilized as an anti-rodenticide in agriculture production before and after harvesting.”

24 copyedit issues flagged (2 major): mostly typo, grammar, consistency.

Checked 38 references: 12 verified — 24 unresolved, 2 not checked.

Reproducibility

1 data/code link checked; 1 live.

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

This published paper has significant methodological weaknesses that an informed reader should weigh carefully. The lack of randomization details, blinding, and inferential statistics means the reported LD50 and mortality data should be treated as preliminary. A correction or independent re-analysis would be warranted to confirm the findings.

1.
HIGHrigor
Reconcile the internal contradiction in animal sex: Section 2.7.1 says '25 male mice' but Section 2.7.2 mentions 'both sex (females and males)'. Clarify which sex was used in the main toxicity test and justify the selection.
This inconsistency undermines the reproducibility of the study and could indicate a reporting error.
2.
HIGHrigor
Reconcile the dose range contradiction: Abstract states 0.3-0.5 g/kg, but Methods state 0.5-3.0 g/kg. Correct the discrepancy and ensure the reported LD50 (300 mg/kg) is consistent with the dosing table.
This internal contradiction is a major reporting error that could mislead readers about the experimental design.
3.
HIGHstatistics
Report exact p-values, test statistics (e.g., F-values, t-values), and effect sizes with confidence intervals for all inferential analyses (ANOVA, probit).
Without these, the statistical analysis is incomplete and the reported LD50 cannot be evaluated for precision.
4.
HIGHdata code
Deposit raw data (individual mouse weights, mortality timestamps, histopathology scores, GC-MS spectra) in a public repository (e.g., Zenodo, Figshare) and provide a DOI in the data availability statement.
The current vague statement does not meet FAIR data principles and prevents independent verification.
5.
HIGHreporting
Temper the conclusion that 'T. peruviana fruit extract can be utilized as a natural alternative anti-rodenticide in agriculture production' to reflect the preliminary nature of the single-dose lab study, e.g., 'warrants further investigation as a potential rodenticide'.
The claim is unsupported by the evidence presented (no field testing, no palatability or non-target safety data).
6.
HIGHrigor
Describe the randomization method (e.g., computer-generated random numbers) and state the unit of randomization (individual mouse or cage) in Section 2.7.2.
The current statement 'randomly selected' is insufficient to assess allocation bias.
7.
HIGHrigor
Implement and report blinding of investigators during dosing and histopathological assessment, or provide a justification for not blinding, in Sections 2.7.2 and 2.8.
Lack of blinding is a major source of bias in animal studies.
8.
HIGHrigor
Conduct and report an a priori power analysis to justify the sample size (5 mice per group), stating the expected effect size, alpha, and power, in a new subsection of Section 2.7.
Without a power analysis, the study may be underpowered to detect meaningful differences.
9.
HIGHethics
Add the ethics protocol number to the approval statement in Section 2.7.1 and state compliance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals or equivalent.
A protocol number is standard for animal research and allows verification of approval.
10.
HIGHreporting
Follow the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines for reporting animal research and include a completed checklist as supplementary material.
Adherence to reporting guidelines improves completeness and reproducibility.
11.
HIGHreporting
Add a dedicated 'Limitations' section to the Discussion, addressing the small sample size, lack of blinding, single-dose design, and absence of field validation.
Transparent discussion of limitations helps readers interpret the findings appropriately.
12.
HIGHstatistics
Identify the statistical software (e.g., SPSS, Prism, R) with version number in Section 2.9.
Software identification is essential for reproducibility.
13.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Correct the misspelling 'heapatocytes' to 'hepatocytes' in the Abstract.
Typographical errors undermine the paper's professionalism.
14.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Standardize the animal strain nomenclature to 'Balb/C mice' throughout the manuscript (currently uses 'Balb C mice', 'balb C rats', 'Balb/C mice' inconsistently).
Inconsistent terminology can confuse readers.
15.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Fill in all empty reference brackets (e.g., '[]') with proper citations or use a consistent placeholder.
Empty brackets harm the credibility of the reference list.
16.
MEDIUMreporting
Explicitly state funding sources and grant numbers in the acknowledgment section or a separate funding statement.
Funding transparency is a standard requirement for most journals.
17.
LOWcopyedit
Correct the typo 'Reseach' to 'Research' in Section 2.7.1.
Minor typographical error.
18.
LOWcopyedit
Clarify the dosing table (Table 5) by reporting dose per kg body weight consistently, not just weight of extract per cage.
The current table does not allow easy calculation of the dose per kg, making comparison to the LD50 difficult.

Full text (39,784 chars)Analyzed: Jul 6, 2026

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