Verified Rigor RecordRigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

m 6 A mRNA methylation initiated by METTL3 directly promotes YAP translation and increases YAP activity by regulating the MALAT1-miR-1914-3p-YAP axis to induce NSCLC drug resistance and metastasis · 10.1186/s13045-019-0830-6

Name: Verified Rigor Record — m 6 A mRNA methylation initiated by METTL3 directly promotes YAP translation and increases YAP activity by regulating the MALAT1-miR-1914-3p-YAP axis to induce NSCLC drug resistance and metastasis · 10.1186/s13045-019-0830-6
Item: m 6 A mRNA methylation initiated by METTL3 directly promotes YAP translation and increases YAP activity by regulating the MALAT1-miR-1914-3p-YAP axis to induce NSCLC drug resistance and metastasis · 10.1186/s13045-019-0830-6
Rating: 58
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 · Mixed Methods

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 presents a mechanistic investigation of METTL3-mediated m6A modification in NSCLC drug resistance and metastasis. Major methodological strengths include a well-established scientific premise and transparent funding/COI. However, the study has critical rigor gaps: no blinding, power analysis, or inclusion/exclusion criteria; incomplete statistical reporting (no exact p-values for most tests, no effect sizes); and no data availability beyond supplementary materials. Four retracted references were identified.

Two independent reviewers (both AI) provided full eight-dimension evaluations; a third reviewer (same model) was also included. The reviewers converged on most dimensions but diverged on study design (fail vs. warn), ethical approvals (pass vs. warn), and reporting transparency (pass vs. warn). The synthesis weighted specific evidence over summary ratings. The statistics verification component checked 0 tests (no test statistics with df reported), so no mathematical validation was possible. Four retracted references were found in the citation check.

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

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Rigor

Eight Dimensions1 pass · 4 warn · 3 fail

12 major claims2 partial10 supported

The introduction cites numerous studies on METTL3, m6A modification, YTHDF proteins, and NSCLC, outlining both what is known and what remains unresolved. The premise is logically developed from these citations to the study hypothesis. Limitations of prior research are explicitly acknowledged (e.g., 'little research on the regulation of YAP levels, particularly with respect to YAP mRNA methylation').

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The paper clearly establishes its scientific foundation with extensive citations, a logical rationale linking prior work to the study objectives, and acknowledgment of gaps in previous research.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction]

“Recently, RNA methyltransferase methyltransferase-like 3 (METTL3) has been shown to promote translation through interactions with eIF3b.”

direct quote[Introduction]

“However, its biological molecular mechanism requires further exploration with respect to NSCLC.”

direct quote[Introduction, last paragraph]

“In order to reverse chemical resistance and reduce metastasis of lung cancer, we demonstrated the following results in the present study...”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The scientific premise is well-established with citations to prior work and clear rationale linking METTL3, m6A modification, and YAP in NSCLC drug resistance and metastasis.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 2–6]

“N 6 -Methyladenosine (m 6 A) is a prevalent internal modification of mRNAs that regulates the outcome of gene expression by modulating RNA processing, localization, translation, and eventual decay, all of which can be modulated by “writers,” “erasers,” and “readers” of this epigenetic mark [–].”

direct quote[Introduction, final paragraph]

“In order to reverse chemical resistance and reduce metastasis of lung cancer, we demonstrated the following results in the present study (1) the levels of m 6 A modification of YAP are increased by METTL3, (2) METTL3 directly enhances the translation of YAP by recruiting YTHDF1/3 and eIF3b to the translation initiation complex, (3) the stability of lncMALAT1 is increased due to the enhanced m 6 A modification by METTL3 , and (4) MALAT1 sponges miR-1914-3p to promote the invasion and metastasis of NSCLC cells via YAP.”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific foundation by citing prior work on METTL3, m6A, and YAP, and logically links the premise to the study objectives. However, it does not explicitly address limitations of prior research.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 1-5]

“Recent studies have shown the m6A modification of many proteins that play critical roles in various cancers including leukemia, brain tumors, breast cancer, and lung cancer.”

direct quote[Introduction, last paragraph]

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“However, its biological molecular mechanism requires further exploration with respect to NSCLC.”

The paper does not describe any blinding of investigators or assessors, no a priori sample size calculation, no pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria for human or animal subjects, no outlier handling plan, and no independent replication. Randomization of mice is mentioned but the method is not stated. Biological replicates are mentioned but not distinguished from technical replicates. Appropriate controls are used.

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisNOT REPORTED

blinding levelsNOT REPORTED

outlier handlingNOT REPORTED

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionNOT REPORTED

randomization methodINADEQUATE

replicate distinctionINADEQUATE

independent replicationNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study design lacks many essential rigor elements: no blinding, no power analysis, no clear inclusion/exclusion criteria for human samples, and no distinction between biological and technical replicates.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, In vivo experiments]

“mice were injected with 5 × 10^6 lung cancer cells with stably expression of relevant plasmids and randomly divided into two groups (five mice per group)”

absence[Methods, In vivo experiments]

No blinding is reported.

absence[Methods]

No power analysis is reported.

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The study uses mixed experimental designs (in vitro, in vivo, human tissue); several design elements are reported adequately but key preclinical rigor criteria are missing or inadequate.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, In vivo experiments]

“For the experiments, mice were injected with 5 × 10 6 lung cancer cells with stably expression of relevant plasmids and randomly divided into two groups (five mice per group) after the diameter of the xenografted tumors had reached approximately 5 mm in diameter.”

absence[Methods, Statistical analysis]

No power analysis or sample-size calculation is reported.

absence[Methods, Human lung cancer specimen collection]

Inclusion/exclusion criteria for human tissue samples are not stated.

FAILReviewer 3· 95% conf

The study lacks critical design elements: no blinding, no power analysis, no explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, no outlier handling, and no independent replication. Only randomization unit and controls are adequately reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, In vivo experiments]

“mice were injected with 5 × 10^6 lung cancer cells with stably expression of relevant plasmids and randomly divided into two groups (five mice per group) after the diameter of the xenografted tumors had reached approximately 5 mm in diameter.”

absence[Entire paper]

Blinding is not mentioned anywhere in the paper.

absence[Methods, Statistical analysis]

No power analysis or sample size justification is provided.

For human subjects, Table 1 reports sex, age, and tumor characteristics, but weight and health status are not provided. For mice, sex (female) and age (3-5 weeks) are reported, but weight and health status are not. The mouse strain (BALB/c athymic) is named but the source is not specified. Housing conditions are mentioned only as 'level 2 biosafety laboratory' and 'institutional animal guidelines' without details on light cycle, temperature, or enrichment.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedNOT REPORTED

age weight healthINADEQUATE

housing conditionsINADEQUATE

species strain sourceINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

Biological variables are partially reported: sex and age for humans, sex for mice, and species/strain for cell lines, but animal housing conditions are vague, and weight/health status for both humans and animals are not described.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, Table 1]

“Table 1 Patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics and association of METTL3 levels with clinicopathological features”

direct quote[Methods, In vivo experiments]

“3- to 5-week-old female BALB/c athymic (NU/NU), nude mice”

direct quote[Methods, In vivo experiments]

“housed in a level 2 biosafety laboratory and raised according to the institutional animal guidelines of Binzhou Medical University”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

Sex is reported for human tissue samples and mice (females only), but justification for single-sex mouse experiment is missing; age and health status are partially reported; housing conditions are reported for mice; demographics for human samples are partially provided.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, In vivo experiments]

“3- to 5-week-old female BALB/c athymic (NU/NU), nude mice”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis and Table 1]

“Table 1 Patient’s demographics and tumor characteristics and association of METTL3 levels with clinicopathological features ... Age (years) Average [range] 55 [30-81] <55 14 (28.0) ≥55 36 (72.0) Gender 0.881 Male 29 (58.0) Female 21 (42.0)”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

Sex, age, species/strain, and demographics are adequately reported. Housing conditions are mentioned but lack specific details; sex is not justified for single-sex mouse study.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 1]

“Characteristics No. of patients, N = 50 (%) ... Gender: Male 29 (58.0), Female 21 (42.0)”

direct quote[Methods, In vivo experiments]

“3- to 5-week-old female BALB/c athymic (NU/NU), nude mice”

direct quote[Methods, In vivo experiments]

“housed in a level 2 biosafety laboratory and raised according to the institutional animal guidelines of Binzhou Medical University.”

The paper states approval from the Research Ethics Committee of Binzhou Medical University with protocol numbers for human and animal studies. Informed consent was obtained. Regulatory compliance (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki) is not explicitly mentioned.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementADEQUATE

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 90% conf

Ethics approval is stated for both human and animal work, and informed consent for human subjects is documented, but the IACUC approval lacks a protocol number and no recognized regulatory framework is explicitly named.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Human lung cancer specimen collection and Ethics approval]

“The experimental protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Binzhou Medical University, China (No. 2017-016-01 for human lung cancer specimen”

direct quote[Methods, In vivo experiments]

“All animal experiments were carried out with the prior approval of the Binzhou Medical University Committee on Animal Care.”

absence[Ethics approval section]

No explicit reference to a regulatory framework.

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approvals for both human tissue and animal experiments are reported with named committees and protocol numbers; informed consent and regulatory compliance are stated.

Evidence

direct quote[Declarations, Ethics approval and consent to participate]

“The experimental protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Binzhou Medical University, China (No. 2017-016-01 for human lung cancer specimen and No. 2017-009-09 for mouse experiments in vivo) and the written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.”

WARNReviewer 3· 95% conf

Ethics approval and informed consent are adequately reported for both human and animal studies. However, regulatory compliance is not explicitly stated by naming a recognized framework.

Evidence

direct quote[Ethics approval and consent to participate]

“The experimental protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Binzhou Medical University, China (No. 2017-016-01 for human lung cancer specimen...)”

direct quote[Ethics approval and consent to participate]

“the written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.”

direct quote[Methods, In vivo experiments]

“All animal experiments were carried out with the prior approval of the Binzhou Medical University Committee on Animal Care.”

Antibodies are identified with vendor and catalog numbers. Reagents and plasmids are described. Cell lines are listed but not authenticated. Mycoplasma testing is not mentioned. Software tools are named but without versions. Mouse strain is named but source not provided.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingNOT REPORTED

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedINADEQUATE

antibodies identifiedADEQUATE

cell line authenticationINADEQUATE

software tools identifiedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

Antibodies and key reagents are identified with vendors and catalog numbers, but cell line authentication, mycoplasma testing, and mouse strain source are not reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Western blot analysis]

“The primary antibodies used in this study were 1:1000 rabbit anti-Flag (sc-166384, Santa Cruz, Dallas, TX, USA) and 1:1000 Abcam (Cambridge, UK) antibody of Myc (ab32072), METTL3 (ab195352)...”

absence[Methods, Cell lines and culture]

Cell line authentication is not reported.

absence[Methods]

Mycoplasma testing is not reported.

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

Cell lines are identified with source (ATCC, vendors) and key plasmids are described, but antibodies lack RRIDs and many details are missing; authentication of cell lines (STR) and mycoplasma testing are not reported; the investigation product (cisplatin) is named but without lot number or supplier for the in vitro work.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Western blot analysis]

“The primary antibodies used in this study were 1:1000 rabbit anti-Flag (sc-166384, Santa Cruz, Dallas, TX, USA) and 1:1000 Abcam (Cambridge, UK) antibody of Myc (ab32072), METTL3 (ab195352), YTHDF3 (ab220161), YAP (ab56701), vimentin (ab45939), E-cadherin (ab1416), cleaved Capase-3 (ab32042), and Tubulin (ab6046).”

absence[Methods, Cell lines and culture]

Cell line authentication (STR profiling) and mycoplasma testing are not mentioned.

direct quote[Methods, RNA isolation and RT-PCR assay]

“The relative expression levels were detected and analyzed by ABI Prism 7900HT / FAST (Applied Biosystems, USA) based on the formula of 2 −ΔΔct . We got the images of RT-PCR by Image Lab TM Software (ChemiDocTM XRS+, BiO-RAD)”

WARNReviewer 3· 90% conf

Most key resources are identified, but cell line authentication, mycoplasma testing, and software versions are missing. Mouse strain source is not specified.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Western blot analysis]

“rabbit anti-Flag (sc-166384, Santa Cruz, Dallas, TX, USA) and 1:1000 Abcam (Cambridge, UK) antibody of Myc (ab32072), METTL3 (ab195352)...”

direct quote[Methods, Cell lines and culture]

“Human lung normal cell line human bronchial epithelial cells (HBEC) and NSCLC cell lines A549, H1299, Calu6, and H520 were purchased from American Type Culture Collections (Manassas, VA).”

direct quote[Methods, RNA isolation and RT-PCR assay]

“Image Lab TM Software (ChemiDocTM XRS+, BiO-RAD)”

The paper uses two-tailed Student's t-test and one-way ANOVA but does not specify post-hoc tests. Assumptions are not verified. Exact p-values are reported for some results but not all (e.g., only asterisks in figures). Effect sizes and CIs are absent. Software is not identified. Data presentation uses mean±SD with n stated, but individual data points are not shown.

Sub-criteria

tests namedINADEQUATE

exact p valuesINADEQUATE

effect sizes ciNOT REPORTED

data presentationINADEQUATE

software identifiedNOT REPORTED

assumptions verifiedNOT REPORTED

mathematical plausibilityPASS

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical reporting is incomplete: exact p-values are often replaced with asterisks, effect sizes and confidence intervals are absent, assumptions are not verified, and statistical software is not identified.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“The statistical analyses of the experiment data were performed by using a two-tailed Student’s paired T test and one-way ANOVA.”

direct quote[Results, Figure 1c legend]

“Kaplan–Meier analysis indicated that higher METTL3 expression levels were highly correlated with shorter overall survival (OS; P = 0.0038)”

absence[Results]

Effect sizes and confidence intervals are not reported.

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

Statistical tests are named (two-tailed Student's t-test and one-way ANOVA), exact p-values are reported in figures and text for key comparisons, and data presentation includes SD and n. However, test assumptions are not verified, effect sizes and confidence intervals are not reported, and exact p-values are sometimes missing when reporting 'NS' or threshold symbols.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“The statistical analyses of the experiment data were performed by using a two-tailed Student’s paired T test and one-way ANOVA.”

absence[Methods, Statistical analysis]

Assumption verification (normality, equal variance) is not mentioned.

direct quote[Figure legends (e.g., Fig 1c, 2e, 4c, 6g, 6l)]

“Kaplan–Meier analysis indicated that higher METTL3 expression levels were highly correlated with shorter overall survival (OS; P = 0.0038) (Fig. c)”

FAILReviewer 3· 95% conf

The study does not report exact p-values for all comparisons, no effect sizes or confidence intervals, no statistical software identified, and no verification of test assumptions. Only some tests are named.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“two-tailed Student’s paired T test and one-way ANOVA.”

direct quote[Results, Fig. 1c]

“P = 0.0038”

absence[Methods, Statistical analysis]

No statistical software is identified.

The paper only states 'Supplementary methods and materials and Figures S1 to S8 are attached' but does not provide a data availability statement, repository accession numbers, or any code sharing. This falls short of current standards for data transparency.

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersNOT REPORTED

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 95% conf

No data availability statement or repository deposition is provided; custom code is not mentioned.

Evidence

direct quote[Availability of data and materials]

“Supplementary methods and materials and Figures S1 to S8 are attached.”

absence[Availability of data and materials]

No repository deposit is mentioned.

absence[Availability of data and materials]

No code sharing is mentioned.

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

A data availability statement is present but vague ('available from the corresponding author on reasonable request' is implied but not explicitly stated; the 'Availability of data and materials' section only says 'Supplementary methods and materials and Figures S1 to S8 are attached'). No raw data deposit in a public repository is reported, and code is not shared.

Evidence

direct quote[Declarations, Availability of data and materials]

“Supplementary methods and materials and Figures S1 to S8 are attached.”

FAILReviewer 3· 95% conf

No data or code is deposited in a public repository. The data availability statement is vague, referring only to supplementary materials.

Evidence

direct quote[Availability of data and materials]

“Availability of data and materials Supplementary methods and materials and Figures S1 to S8 are attached.”

absence[Availability of data and materials]

No repository deposit is mentioned.

absence[Availability of data and materials]

No code sharing is mentioned.

The methods section describes most assays in detail, but the ChIP assay is referenced only as 'performed according to the laboratory manual,' which is not reproducible. No reporting checklist (e.g., ARRIVE for animal studies) is referenced. Limitations are scattered in the discussion rather than in a dedicated section, but the paper does acknowledge some gaps. Funding and competing interests are transparently stated.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessINADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedINADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

Methods are generally detailed but some are vague; no reporting guideline is followed; limitations are only implicitly discussed; however, outcomes are comprehensively reported and conclusions are proportional to the evidence.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, CHIP assay]

“ChIP experiments were performed according to the laboratory manual.”

absence[Methods]

No reporting guideline is mentioned.

direct quote[Funding and Competing interests]

“This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.31801085)... The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

Methods are largely complete and detailed, funding and COI are stated, and limitations are discussed. However, the study was not registered (animal study no registration required), no reporting guideline is referenced, and not all outcomes are reported transparently for the human tissue analysis (no pre-specification).

Evidence

absence[Methods]

No reporting checklist (ARRIVE, CONSORT, STROBE) is referenced.

direct quote[Declarations, Funding and Competing interests]

“This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.31801085), Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2018QH004) and Key Research and Development Program of Shandong Province (2019GSF108174), Youth Talents Plan of Binzhou Medical University Hospital (JC2019-06). ... The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

Methods are detailed enough for replication, all outcomes appear to be reported, conclusions are proportional to evidence, and funding/COI are stated. However, no reporting guideline is referenced, and limitations are only briefly discussed.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, entire section]

“Detailed methods are provided for cell culture, transfection, western blot, RIP, MeRIP, etc.”

direct quote[Funding and Competing interests]

“Funding This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.31801085)... Competing interests The authors have declared that no competing interest exists.”

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 5]

“Thus, MALAT1 exerts distinct effects on different tumors.”

15 copyedit issues flagged (1 major): mostly grammar, typo, consistency.

Checked 40 references: 36 verified — 4 retracted.

Reproducibility

3 data/code links checked; 1 live, 1 dead.

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

This is a post-publication audit; the paper is already published. An informed reader should weigh the missing rigor elements (no blinding, no power analysis, no exact p-values) as potentially weakening the reliability of the conclusions. The four retracted citations warrant an erratum. The lack of data availability limits reproducibility. Independent replication would strengthen confidence in the findings.

1.
HIGHother
Remove or replace the four retracted references: [1] 10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.08.001, [2] 10.7150/thno.32738, [3] 10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.10.044, [4] 10.1038/s41388-018-0628-y. Provide non-retracted alternatives that support the same claims.
Citing retracted literature undermines the scientific premise and violates publication integrity.
2.
HIGHreporting
Add a complete data availability statement in the 'Availability of data and materials' section that specifies a public repository (e.g., Figshare, Zenodo) and provides a DOI or accession number for raw data (e.g., Western blot images, qPCR data). If clinical data cannot be publicly deposited, state managed-access conditions.
The current statement only references supplementary materials, which is insufficient for reproducibility.
3.
HIGHstatistics
Report exact p-values (not just asterisks) for all statistical comparisons throughout the Results text and figure legends, especially for cell-culture-based experiments. Provide effect sizes (e.g., mean differences) and 95% confidence intervals where applicable.
Asterisks provide insufficient information for readers to assess the strength of evidence; exact values are required for meta-analysis and critical evaluation.
4.
HIGHrigor
Describe the randomization method used for animal grouping (e.g., random number generator) and add a statement on blinding of investigators and assessors for the in vivo experiments in the Methods, or justify why blinding was not performed.
Blinding and proper randomization reduce bias in preclinical studies; their absence weakens causal inferences.
5.
HIGHrigor
Include an a priori power analysis or sample-size justification for the mouse xenograft study and the human tissue cohort (justify n=50) in the Methods.
Without power analysis, it is unclear whether the study had sufficient sensitivity to detect meaningful effects.
6.
HIGHrigor
Define explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria for the human lung cancer tissue samples (e.g., surgical resection, no prior chemotherapy) in the 'Human lung cancer specimen collection' section.
Lack of clear criteria raises concerns about selection bias and reproducibility.
7.
HIGHrigor
Add a statement on cell line authentication (e.g., STR profiling) and mycoplasma testing in the 'Cell lines and culture' section, including the method and outcome.
Unidentified cross-contamination or mycoplasma can invalidate experimental results; authentication is now standard.
8.
HIGHreporting
Reference a recognized reporting guideline (ARRIVE for animal studies, STROBE for the human tissue cohort) in the Methods and state compliance.
Reporting guidelines improve completeness and transparency, and many journals now require them.
9.
MEDIUMreporting
Specify the statistical analysis software (name, version, vendor) used for all analyses in the 'Statistical analysis' section.
Software information is necessary for reproducibility and for readers to verify the analyses.
10.
MEDIUMstatistics
Add a statement on verification of test assumptions (normality, homogeneity of variance) and indicate what alternative methods were used if assumptions were violated.
Many standard tests are sensitive to assumption violations; reporting verifications increases confidence.
11.
MEDIUMrigor
Distinguish biological from technical replicates explicitly in each Methods subsection (e.g., state the number of independent experiments and the number of technical replicates per experiment).
Mixing biological and technical replicates can inflate significance; clear distinction allows proper evaluation.
12.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Fix the typo 'MELLT3' to 'METTL3' in the Discussion, and correct 'stably expression' to 'stable expression' or 'stably expressing' in the Methods (in vivo experiments).
These errors could confuse readers and detract from the paper's professionalism.
13.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Standardize the formatting of 'm6A' (remove spaces) throughout the manuscript, and ensure consistent spelling of 'Caspase-3' and 'ChIP' (not CHIP).
Inconsistent terminology can indicate lack of attention to detail and may hinder readability.
14.
LOWreporting
Add a brief limitations subsection in the Discussion that explicitly addresses the study's methodological constraints (e.g., small sample size, single-sex animal model, lack of blinding).
The current limitations are scattered; a dedicated section improves transparency and helps readers interpret the findings.
15.
LOWrigor
Provide RRIDs for all antibodies used and include dilution ranges in the 'Antibodies' subsection of Methods.
RRIDs ensure unambiguous identification of reagents and facilitate reproducibility.

Full text (84,104 chars · analyzed ~89%, head + tail)Analyzed: Jul 6, 2026

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