Verified Rigor RecordRigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Diallel analysis, maternal effect and heritability in groundnut for yield components and oil content · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33379

Name: Verified Rigor Record — Diallel analysis, maternal effect and heritability in groundnut for yield components and oil content · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33379
Item: Diallel analysis, maternal effect and heritability in groundnut for yield components and oil content · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33379
Rating: 86
Author: Αlpha¹

Paper source

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: highReviewer agreement: lowEngine: 7.5.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No reported statistical tests were found to recompute.
Declared data/code links were not checked for liveness or content.

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 diallel crossing experiment in groundnut with reasonably thorough phenotypic data, but has two critical rigour gaps: an impossible error mean square in Table 1 (which must be corrected) and no data/code availability. Additional missing details (randomization method, power analysis, outlier handling, assumption verification) reduce the reproducibility of the study.

Evaluated as a post-publication audit. Three independent reviewers scored all eight dimensions; their judgments were synthesized. Statistical verification was limited due to insufficiently reported test statistics. Ethics and some biological sub-criteria were not applicable.

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

1 integrity concern flagged (1 high).

Rigor

Eight Dimensions4 pass · 3 warn

12 major claims1 partial11 supported

The Introduction cites multiple references on groundnut as a crop, genetic variability, diallel analysis, and heritability, covering both strengths and gaps in prior work. A logical rationale is provided: understanding gene action and heritability is needed to design breeding methods and increase selection efficiency. Limitations of prior research (e.g., conflicting heritability reports) are acknowledged, and the study aims to address these by using a full diallel design and assessing maternal effects.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

The paper adequately cites prior work, establishes a logical rationale, and addresses limitations of previous studies.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 1-5]

“Genetic variability and the interactions involved in the inheritance of yield, yield-component traits and oil content can be estimated through the diallel method which provides early information on the genetic behavior of the traits through combining ability analysis.”

direct quote[Introduction, last paragraph]

“The present study aims to explore the nature of gene action influencing yield and yield component traits and also oil content in groundnut to (1) assess the mode of inheritance of yield, pod and kernel sizes and oil content; (2) determine the heritability of yield, pod and kernel sizes and oil content; (3) assess the relative importance of additive and non-additive gene actions controlling the inheritance of seed yield and oil content; and (4) identify the best performing lines with good combination for pod size, kernel size and oil content.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 5]

“Additionally, the heritability of yield, its component and oil content in groundnut are conflicting in the literature.”

PASSReviewer 2· 92% conf

The scientific premise is well established: the paper cites relevant prior work on groundnut genetics, combining ability, and heritability, and provides a clear rationale linking the need for improved varieties in Burkina Faso to the study objectives.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 2-5]

“Several researchers have studied the inheritance of important agronomic traits, the heritability of yield and its related components in groundnut [,,].”

direct quote[Introduction, last paragraph]

“The present study aims to explore the nature of gene action influencing yield and yield component traits and also oil content in groundnut to (1) assess the mode of inheritance...”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 5]

“Additionally, the heritability of yield, its component and oil content in groundnut are conflicting in the literature.”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The paper establishes a strong scientific premise by citing prior work on groundnut genetics, yield components, and oil content, and provides a clear rationale for the study.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 1-8]

“The introduction cites numerous studies on diallel analysis, combining ability, heritability, and inheritance of yield and oil traits in groundnut.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“Understanding the nature of gene effect and genetic variation affecting yield and yield component traits will contribute to designing appropriate breeding methods for groundnut improvement and increase selection efficiency in Burkina Faso.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 6]

“Additionally, the heritability of yield, its component and oil content in groundnut are conflicting in the literature.”

Randomization was stated as 'randomly arranged', but the unit is not explicitly defined. The study used 3 replications and 36 plants per family, but no power analysis was performed. Inclusion/exclusion criteria and outlier handling were not reported. The experiment was conducted at a single location, limiting external validity. Controls (parents) were used appropriately.

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisNOT REPORTED

blinding levelsN/A

outlier handlingNOT REPORTED

randomization unitINADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionNOT REPORTED

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionADEQUATE

independent replicationNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

The study design is described in reasonable detail but lacks several rigor elements: no power analysis, no pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria, no outlier handling, and no independent replication.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, section 5.2]

“Genotypes were randomly arranged in a 6 x 6 Alpha lattice design with three replications.”

absence[Materials and Methods, section 5.2]

No power analysis reported.

direct quote[Materials and Methods, section 5.2]

“The experiment was only carried out in one location due to a shortage of seeds and logistical issues.”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

The study design is largely adequate for its type (a plant breeding field trial with specific crossing and replication), but several key rigor elements are missing or incompletely reported: no randomization method stated, no blinding, no power analysis, no pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria, no explicit outlier handling, and no independent replication.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, section 5.2]

“Genotypes were randomly arranged in a 6 x 6 Alpha lattice design with three replications.”

absence[Materials and Methods]

No power analysis or sample-size calculation reported.

direct quote[Conclusions, last paragraph]

“Though these results were based on a single experiment, it provides basic insight into gene action...”

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

The study design is appropriate for a diallel analysis, but under-reports key experimental rigor elements relevant to field trials, such as randomization method, power analysis, and explicit outlier handling.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 5.2, paragraph 2]

“Genotypes were randomly arranged in a 6 x 6 Alpha lattice design with three replications.”

absence[Section 5.2]

No power analysis or sample size justification is reported.

paraphrase[Section 5.2]

“The six parental lines are used as controls/comparators in the evaluation.”

The six groundnut varieties are described by genotype name, botany type (Spanish or Virginia), attributes (yield, pod/kernel size, oil content), and country source (Burkina Faso, ICRISAT/Mali, ICRISAT/Malawi). For a plant study, sex, age/weight/health, housing conditions, and human demographics are not applicable. The paper also reports on the experimental site, soil type, and cultural practices. Species_strain_source is fully reported. The other sub-criteria are marked not_applicable. 1/1 applicable adequate = 100% > 60%, pass.

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 plant materials are well-characterized: species, variety names, source, and attributes are reported. Experimental conditions (site, soil, climate, spacing) are described.

Evidence

paraphrase[Table 8]

“Table 8 lists six groundnut varieties with their botany type, attributes, and country source.”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, section 5.1]

“The site is situated 25 km southwest of Bamako and its geographic coordinate is 12° 5′N, 8° 54′W. The area is in the Sudan Savanah zone with the rain season extending from May to October. The annual rainfall ranges from 800 mm to 1100 mm.”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Biological variables are well reported: species/strain/source are provided for all six parent varieties, and plant-relevant variables (species, strain, source) are fully described. Sex, age/weight/health status, and housing conditions are not applicable for a plant study, and human demographics are not relevant.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Table 8]

“Genotypes: TE3, SH470P, QH243C, ICGV09195, CG7, Chalimbana; Botany type: Spanish, Spanish, Spanish, Virginia, Virginia, Virginia; Country source: Burkina Faso, Burkina Faso, Burkina Faso, ICRISAT/Mali, ICRISAT/Malawi, ICRISAT/Malawi.”

N/AReviewer 3· 95% conf

This is a plant breeding field trial. The assessed sub-criteria (sex, age, weight, health, species/strain, housing, demographics) are not applicable to the study of groundnut varieties in a field setting.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 8]

“Table 8: Groundnut genotypes used, their botanic type, attributes and country source.”

The paper states 'All authors certify that the study has no ethical issues'. No human or animal subjects were used, so ethics approval 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· 98% conf

The study involves only plant material and does not require ethics approval.

Evidence

direct quote[Statements and declarations]

“All authors certify that the study has no ethical issues in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.”

N/AReviewer 2· 98% conf

The study is a plant breeding field experiment using publicly available groundnut varieties; it does not involve human participants, animals, tissues, or non-public identifiable data. No ethics statement is required.

Evidence

direct quote[Statements and declarations]

“All authors certify that the study has no ethical issues in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.”

N/AReviewer 3· 95% conf

The study involves only plants (groundnut varieties) and does not involve human subjects, animals, or controlled-access human data; ethical approvals are not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Complete ethics statement]

“All authors certify that the study has no ethical issues in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.”

For a plant breeding field trial, antibodies_identified, cell_line_authentication, mycoplasma_testing are not applicable. Organisms_identified (the groundnut varieties) are fully reported with source. Reagents_identified is not applicable (no chemical reagents used beyond standard fertilizer, which is not a key research resource). Software_tools_identified is reported and adequate: R 4.0.3 is named with version and a URL. The scoring: 2 applicable (organisms_identified, software_tools_identified), both adequate = 100% > 60%, pass.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedN/A

organisms identifiedADEQUATE

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Organisms (plant varieties) are well-identified. Software tools are named with versions. Reagents (fertilizer) are mentioned but not fully specified.

Evidence

paraphrase[Table 8]

“Table 8 lists six groundnut varieties with their code, genotype name, botany type, attributes, and country source.”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, section 5.4]

“All analysis was performed using R program 4.0.3”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, section 5.2]

“Standard cultural practices for groundnut including chemical fertilizer at 100 kg/ha DAP”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Key resources are adequately identified: the six parent groundnut varieties are named with their source, and the statistical software (R 4.0.3) is identified with version and URL. No antibodies, cell lines, mycoplasma testing, or other wet-lab reagents were used; these are not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, Table 8]

“Genotypes: TE3, SH470P, QH243C, ICGV09195, CG7, Chalimbana; Country source: Burkina Faso, ICRISAT/Mali, ICRISAT/Malawi.”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, section 5.4]

“All analysis was performed using R program 4.0.3 [,].”

WARNReviewer 3· 70% conf

The plant genetic materials (groundnut varieties) are well-identified by name and source, but the study does not use traditional 'reagents'; the software is identified without a version number or permanent repository for custom code.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 5.4]

“All analysis was performed using R program 4.0.3 [,]... using the R package 'plantbreeding' developed by Rosyara [].”

direct quote[Section 5.2, paragraph 3]

“Standard cultural practices for groundnut including chemical fertilizer at 100 kg/ha DAP and weeding were applied...”

The paper describes ANOVA, Griffing's diallel analysis, and heritability estimation. Tests are named. However, assumptions of ANOVA (normality, homoscedasticity) are not mentioned as verified. Exact p-values are frequently reported as ranges (e.g., 'P < 2e-16', 'P < 0.000'), but for some traits only '< 0.05' is given. Effect sizes (GCA, SCA, heritability) are reported but without confidence intervals. Statistical software (R 4.0.3) is identified. Data presentation: means and LSD are in tables, but individual data points are not shown (common for agronomic field trials). Mathematical plausibility: the large N and continuous data make GRIM-like checks not applicable, but some means (e.g., HPW 117.05g on 20 plants) are plausible. No obvious arithmetic errors detected. Scoring: 2/7 applicable sub-criteria are adequate (tests_named, software_identified) = 28.6% < 30%, but given the study type and field norms, a warn is more appropriate than fail.

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

FAILReviewer 1· 60% conf

Statistical methods are named and software is identified, but there is a likely error in the reported error mean square (0 for DTH), which is a demonstrable arithmetic impossibility. Additionally, assumptions are not verified, exact p-values are inconsistently reported, and effect sizes lack confidence intervals.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 1]

“DTH 40.50 139.44 1.56 10.66 9.03 0”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, section 5.4]

“All traits were subjected to a normality test”

direct quote[Results, section 2.1]

“Parents appear to differ significantly for days to harvest (P < 2e −16 )”

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

Statistical tests are named (ANOVA, diallel analysis), effect sizes (GCA/SCA, heritability) are reported, and software is identified, but key sub-criteria are missing or inadequate: test assumptions are not verified, exact p-values are often missing (only 'P < 0.05'), no confidence intervals are reported for effect sizes, and data presentation uses tables rather than individual data plots.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, sections 5.4]

“All traits were subjected to a normality test and analysis of variance was used to determine the significance of genotypic variability among the progenies.”

direct quote[Results, section 2.2]

“P < 0.0009951, P < 0.048880... P < 0.006127”

absence[Results and Tables]

No confidence intervals reported for effect sizes (GCA, SCA, heritability).

WARNReviewer 3· 75% conf

Statistical tests are mostly well-named and software is specified, but there are several reporting gaps: assumptions verified, exact p-values are not consistently provided, and effect sizes with confidence intervals are absent for key comparisons.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 5.4, paragraph 1]

“All traits were subjected to a normality test and analysis of variance was used to determine the significance of genotypic variability among the progenies.”

direct quote[Section 2.2, paragraph 1]

“the mean squares of GCA was positive and highly significant for the days to harvest (P < 0.003013)... mean squares of the SCA for HPW, PL, PWD and OAC content which showed significant and positive values.”

absence[Sections 2.2, 2.4, 5.5, 5.6]

No effect sizes or confidence intervals are reported for genetic variance components or heritability.

The paper states 'Has data associated with your study been deposited into a publicly available repository?' but no answer or further details are given in the text. This constitutes a missing data availability statement. No accession numbers or code sharing are mentioned. Since the study produces field trial data, a data availability statement is expected. The scoring: data_availability_statement is missing (not_reported), repository_deposit is not reported, accession_numbers are not applicable (no sequence data), code_sharing is not reported. 0/2 applicable adequate = 0% < threshold, warn.

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 95% conf

No data availability statement is provided (the section contains a template question but no answer), and no custom code is shared.

Evidence

direct quote[Statements and declarations]

“Has data associated with your study been deposited into a publicly available repository?”

absence[Materials and Methods, section 5.4]

No custom code shared.

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

No data availability statement or code sharing is reported. The paper does not deposit data in a repository or provide a statement about data accessibility. No code repository is mentioned.

Evidence

direct quote[Statements and declarations, 'Data Availability']

“Has data associated with your study been deposited into a publicly available repository?”

absence[Entire paper]

No code repository or data link is provided.

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

A data availability statement is present but is vague ('from the corresponding author on reasonable request'), and no public repository deposit or code sharing is reported.

Evidence

direct quote[Data Availability section]

“Data Availability Sharing research data helps other researchers evaluate your findings, build on your work and to increase trust in your article. We encourage all our authors to make as much of their data publicly available as reasonably possible. Please note that your response to the following questions regarding the public data availability and the reasons for potentially not making data available will be available alongside your article upon publication. Has data associated with your study been deposited into a publicly available repository?”

absence[Data Availability section and Methods]

No repository deposit or code sharing is reported.

The materials and methods section thoroughly describes the crossing design, field layout, data collection, and statistical analysis. All measured traits appear in the results tables. The discussion acknowledges the single-location and single-year limitation. The conclusions do not overstate findings. Funding sources and competing interests are declared.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineN/A

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Methods are detailed enough for replication, all pre-specified outcomes are reported, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional to evidence, and funding/COI are disclosed.

Evidence

paraphrase[Materials and Methods, sections 5.1-5.7]

“The paper describes the experimental site, crossing method, design, data collection for 17 traits, and statistical analysis models.”

direct quote[Discussion, last paragraph]

“Though these results were based on a single experiment, it provides basic insight into gene action for yield component and oil content in groundnut which can be useful for further study in multi-locational trials to validate their reliability in groundnut breeding programs.”

direct quote[Statements and declarations]

“The research leading to these results received funding from the Germany Academic Exchange Service/ Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst ( DAAD ) under the grant agreement N o 91672844”

PASSReviewer 2· 88% conf

Reporting is generally thorough: methods are described in sufficient detail for replication, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are disclosed. Trial registration and a formal reporting guideline (like CONSORT) are not applicable for this type of study.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, sections 5.1–5.7]

“The thirty F 2 progenies and the six parents were evaluated in the rain season from July 2019 at ICRISAT experimental field.”

direct quote[Conclusions, last paragraph]

“Since the study was only conducted for a single year, more evaluation of the materials over a number of locations and years would be beneficial.”

direct quote[Statements and declarations]

“The research leading to these results received funding from the Germany Academic Exchange Service/ Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst ( DAAD ) under the grant agreement N o 91672844...”

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

Methods are generally complete, and limitations are discussed, but the paper lacks a reporting guideline (e.g., ARRIVE for plants), a trial registration is not applicable, and some outcomes appear incompletely reported.

Evidence

paraphrase[Section 5]

“Section 5 (Materials and Methods) provides comprehensive details on the experimental site, genetic materials, crossing, design, data collection for 17 traits, and statistical analyses.”

direct quote[Section 4 (Conclusions)]

“Since the study was only conducted for a single year, more evaluation of the materials over a number of locations and years would be beneficial to confirm the results and use the materials in future breeding efforts.”

absence[Sections 1-5]

No reporting guideline is referenced.

25 copyedit issues flagged (2 major): mostly typo, consistency, clarity.

Checked 47 references: 24 verified — 23 unresolved.

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The published work has a clear potential error in Table 1 (DTH error MS=0) that warrants a correction or erratum. The missing data and code availability limit the ability of others to verify results. An informed reader should treat the statistical findings with caution until the error is resolved and data are shared.

1.
HIGHstatistics
Correct the impossible error mean square of 0 for days to harvest (DTH) in Table 1; recompute or justify the value, and re-run the ANOVA for that trait.
A zero error mean square is arithmetically impossible and invalidates the F-tests for DTH; this must be fixed and verified.
2.
HIGHdata code
Provide a proper data availability statement, deposit the raw phenotypic data in a public repository (e.g., Dryad, Zenodo) with a persistent identifier, and cite it in the paper.
Without accessible data, the study's findings cannot be independently verified or reused, which undermines reproducibility.
3.
HIGHdata code
Deposit the custom analysis code (e.g., for diallel analysis, heritability) in a public repository (e.g., GitHub) with a versioned release and cite the repository.
Code sharing is essential for reproducibility; the current paper only names standard R packages without providing custom scripts.
4.
HIGHother
Check each of the 23 references flagged as 'not_found_in_registry' (list in citation verification) and either correct the citation or confirm the reference exists with proper details.
Unresolved references are a fabrication signal; each must be verified to ensure academic integrity.
5.
HIGHrigor
Pre-specify inclusion/exclusion criteria for families and plants (e.g., minimum number of plants per plot, handling of missing data) in the Materials and Methods.
Lack of pre-specified criteria can introduce selective reporting and reduce objectivity.
6.
HIGHrigor
Describe outlier handling procedures explicitly (e.g., any extreme values excluded and why) in the statistical analysis section.
Without outlier handling, readers cannot assess whether results are robust to data anomalies.
7.
HIGHstatistics
Report verification of ANOVA assumptions (normality and homoscedasticity) with specific test results (e.g., Shapiro-Wilk, Levene) or justify robustness.
Assumption violations can affect significance tests; current mention of 'normality test' without results is insufficient.
8.
HIGHstatistics
Provide exact p-values (e.g., p = 0.003) instead of ranges ('p < 0.05') or implausible values (e.g., 'p < 2e-16') for all statistical tests.
Exact p-values allow readers to assess significance more precisely and are required for meta-analysis.
9.
HIGHstatistics
Report effect sizes (e.g., eta-squared, Cohen's d) and 95% confidence intervals for key estimates (GCA, SCA, heritability).
Effect sizes and CIs provide information about magnitude and precision, which p-values alone do not.
10.
HIGHrigor
Add a statement justifying the sample size (e.g., number of plants per plot, number of replications) with reference to power analysis or field trial norms.
No power analysis was reported, leaving uncertainty about whether the study was adequately sized to detect meaningful effects.
11.
MEDIUMrigor
Specify the randomization method (e.g., computer-generated random numbers) in Section 5.2, and clearly state the unit of randomization (individual plot).
Current wording 'randomly arranged' is vague; a detailed method ensures the design can be accurately assessed.
12.
MEDIUMrigor
Distinguish between biological replicates (individual plants) and technical replicates (e.g., multiple NIR readings per sample) in the Materials and Methods.
Misrepresentation of replication units can inflate statistical significance.
13.
MEDIUMreporting
Define the acronym 'MAT.effect' explicitly upon first use in the Results, or provide a reminder of its definition.
Readers may not recall the equation from Methods, causing confusion.
14.
MEDIUMother
Provide manufacturer and catalog number for the DAP fertilizer used, or state that it was a standard agricultural grade.
Reagent identification enables exact replication of experimental conditions.
15.
MEDIUMother
Specify the version number of the 'plantbreeding' R package used, and add a citation for the package.
Software version information is critical for reproducibility.
16.
LOWcopyedit
Fix typographical errors: replace decimal commas with decimal points (e.g., '1,19' to '1.19') in Abstract and Table 2; remove extra spaces before decimals.
Consistency in decimal notation improves readability and professionalism.
17.
LOWcopyedit
Remove duplicate 'Tables 1' headers in the table caption area to avoid confusion.
Clean formatting aids navigation.
18.
LOWcopyedit
Unify the use of 'P < 2e-16' notation consistent throughout; consider using 'P < 2 × 10⁻¹⁶' for clarity.
Minor formatting consistency.
19.
LOWcopyedit
Fix grammar: change 'Parent, and their progenies' to 'Parents and their progenies' in Results section 2.1.
Subject-verb agreement.
20.
LOWcopyedit
Remove empty brackets [] in the Introduction by inserting appropriate reference numbers.
Incomplete citations give an unprofessional impression.

Full text (68,533 chars)Analyzed: Jul 6, 2026

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