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: 71
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.
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 diallel analysis of groundnut combining ability with a generally sound scientific premise and adequate reporting of plant materials, but is undermined by several rigor gaps: the study design lacks key details (randomization method, power analysis, outlier handling), statistical reporting is incomplete (threshold p-values, no effect sizes with CIs), data and code are not accessible, and there is a likely calculation error in heritability for SWD. The copyedit found 26 issues including a major inconsistency in heritability computation.

Three independent reviewers (all AI) scored all eight dimensions; one reviewer (R3) rated biological variables as not applicable but I overruled this for plant studies. The statistics verification covered 0 tests due to insufficient reported statistics; no mathematical errors were confirmed. The citation check found 22 references not found in any registry (potential fabrication signal) but zero retractions. The integrity check flagged a likely heritability miscalculation.

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

3 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Rigor

Eight Dimensions2 pass · 4 warn · 1 fail

12 major claims3 partial9 supported

The introduction cites multiple prior studies on groundnut yield and oil content, genetic control, and combining ability. The rationale for understanding gene effects is clearly stated. Limitations of prior work are acknowledged indirectly through mention of conflicting heritability values, though not systematically addressed.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The study establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior work on groundnut genetics and combining ability, and provides a logical rationale linking genetic variation to breeding objectives.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 1-3]

“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 5]

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

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...”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

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

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 1-5]

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

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 5]

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“While narrow-sense heritability (h2) and broad-sense heritability (H2) values were reported to be high in some studies for l pod and seed [,], moderate and low heritability values were also reported for yield, yield components and oil content [].”

PASSReviewer 3· 92% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise linking prior research on groundnut genetics to the study objectives.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

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

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“Although most of the economically important traits exhibit inheritance of nuclear control, cytoplasmic inheritance were reported to have an effect on traits in cultivated plants”

The study uses a 6x6 full diallel mating design with F2 progenies evaluated in an alpha lattice design with three replications. However, the randomization method for assigning genotypes to plots is not described. No a priori power analysis or sample size calculation is reported. Inclusion/exclusion criteria for plants or data points are not specified. Outlier handling is not mentioned. The study lacks independent replication as it was conducted at a single location in a single year, which the authors acknowledge as a limitation.

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisNOT REPORTED

blinding levelsN/A

outlier handlingNOT REPORTED

randomization unitNOT REPORTED

inclusion exclusionNOT REPORTED

randomization methodNOT REPORTED

replicate distinctionINADEQUATE

independent replicationNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

FAILReviewer 1· 85% conf

The study design lacks essential rigor elements: no blinding, power analysis, explicit replicate distinction, pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria, outlier handling, or independent replication.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, 5.2]

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

absence[Entire paper]

Blinding is not mentioned.

absence[Entire paper]

No power analysis or sample-size justification.

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

The study design is appropriate for a diallel analysis, but several key methodological details are missing or inadequately reported, including randomization method, power analysis, and outlier handling.

Evidence

absence[Materials and Methods, section 5.2]

The randomization method for assigning genotypes to experimental units is not described.

absence[Materials and Methods, section 5.2]

No a priori power analysis or sample size calculation is reported.

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 8]

“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.”

WARNReviewer 3· 78% conf

The study design is described but lacks several critical elements for a diallel/observational field trial.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 5.2]

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

absence[Section 5.4]

Power analysis not reported.

absence[Section 5.4]

Outlier handling not reported.

The six parental genotypes are identified with botanic type, attributes, and country source (Table 8). Housing conditions are described in terms of experimental site (ICRISAT-Mali), soil type, rainfall, spacing, and fertilizer application. Other sub-criteria (sex, age/weight in animals) are not applicable for plants.

Sub-criteria

demographicsN/A

sex reportedN/A

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthN/A

housing conditionsADEQUATE

species strain sourceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 100% conf

The study adequately reports plant variety information (species/strain/source) and husbandry conditions (field location, soil, spacing), which are the applicable biological variables for this plant field trial.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 8]

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

direct quote[Materials and methods, 5.1]

“The site is situated 25 km southwest of Bamako and its geographic coordinate is 12° 5′N, 8° 54′W. ... The soil in the experiment trial site is typical of the zone dominated by sandy-clay soil with a pH of 4.5, low fertility and deficient in organic matter.”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper adequately reports key biological variables for the plant material, including species, variety names, source, and attributes, but does not report sex (not applicable for plants) or housing conditions.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 8]

“P1 TE3 Spanish Low yield; small pod, small kernel, high oil content Burkina Faso”

direct quote[Materials and Methods, section 5.2]

“Standard cultural practices for groundnut including chemical fertilizer at 100 kg/ha DAP and weeding were applied to the field trial to ensure the good development of plants.”

N/AReviewer 3· 99% conf

The study is on groundnut plants, not human or animals; plant-specific variables (sex, age, housing) are not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 5.2]

“Six groundnut varieties comprising 3 varieties from Burkina Faso and 3 varieties from ICRISAT”

The paper includes a generic ethics statement certifying no ethical issues, but no IRB or IACUC is relevant. All sub-criteria are marked not applicable as the study does not involve non-public human or animal subject data.

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· 100% conf

The study involves only plant materials and no human or vertebrate animal subjects, so formal ethical approvals are not 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 2· 95% conf

The study involves only plant material (groundnut varieties) and does not involve human subjects, animals, or non-public identifiable data, so ethical approvals are not applicable.

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· 99% conf

The study involves field trials with plants; no human or animal subjects, so ethics approvals are not applicable.

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.”

The six groundnut varieties are identified by name and source, but no RRIDs or accession numbers are provided. The software (R 4.0.3, packages 'emmeans' and 'plantbreeding') is identified with version. The fertilizer (DAP) is mentioned but without manufacturer or concentration. No antibodies, cell lines, or mycoplasma testing are applicable.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedINADEQUATE

organisms identifiedINADEQUATE

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The plant germplasm (organisms) and statistical software are adequately identified; other resource categories are not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 8]

“TE3 Spanish Low yield; small pod, small kernel, high oil content Burkina Faso”

direct quote[Statistical Analyses, 5.4]

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

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The paper identifies the groundnut varieties and software used, but lacks details on reagent identification (e.g., fertilizer) and does not provide RRIDs or catalog numbers for the plant material.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 8]

“P1 TE3 Spanish Low yield; small pod, small kernel, high oil content Burkina Faso”

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 and weeding were applied”

WARNReviewer 3· 70% conf

The paper identifies plant genotypes and software but lacks full identification for some resources.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 8]

“TE3, Spanish, Low yield; small pod, small kernel, high oil content, Burkina Faso”

direct quote[Section 5.4]

“All analysis was performed using R program 4.0.3”

Tests such as ANOVA and Griffing's diallel are named. Software is identified. However, assumptions (normality) are stated but not verified or acted upon. P-values are often reported as inequalities (e.g., P < 0.05) rather than exact values. Effect sizes are reported (GCA, SCA) but without confidence intervals. Data are presented in tables with LSD and CV, but not individual data points or defined error bars.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesINADEQUATE

effect sizes ciNOT REPORTED

data presentationINADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedINADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

Statistical methods are named and software identified, but key reporting standards are inadequate: exact p-values are given for some tests but often as thresholds, assumptions are mentioned but not verified, effect sizes with confidence intervals are absent, and data presentation lacks individual points and error-bar definitions.

Evidence

direct quote[Statistical Analyses, 5.4]

“the diallel analysis following Griffing's Method 1 and Model 1 [] using the R package 'plantbreeding'”

direct quote[Results, e.g., Table 3 footnote]

“Significant level. a = p < 0.05. b = p < 0.0 1, and. c = p < 0.001.”

direct quote[Statistical Analyses, 5.4]

“All traits were subjected to a normality test”

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The paper names statistical tests and reports p-values, but lacks verification of test assumptions, does not report effect sizes with confidence intervals, and has some imprecise p-value reporting.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and Methods, section 5.4]

“Traits that showed significant genotypic differences were further subjected to the diallel analysis following Griffing's Method 1 and Model 1 [] using the R package 'plantbreeding'.”

direct quote[Results, section 2.2]

“the mean squares of GCA was positive and highly significant for the days to harvest (P < 0.003013), HPW (P < 0.0009951)”

absence[Materials and Methods, section 5.4]

Test assumptions (normality, equal variance) are not verified.

WARNReviewer 3· 75% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate but several reporting gaps exist, including missing exact p-values and effect sizes.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 1 footnote]

“Significant level. a = p < 0.05 %. b = p < 0.0 1 %, and. c = p < 0.001 %.”

absence[Section 2.2]

Effect sizes and confidence intervals not reported.

direct quote[Section 5.4]

“All traits were subjected to a normality test”

The Data Availability section contains only a journal-level prompt and no author response. No dataset or code is shared in a public repository. The paper does not indicate where the data can be accessed.

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· 100% conf

No data availability statement is provided by the authors; there is no repository deposit, no accession numbers, and no custom code repository. Only a journal template prompt appears.

Evidence

direct quote[Data Availability]

“Sharing research data helps other researchers evaluate your findings... Has data associated with your study been deposited into a publicly available repository?”

absence[Entire paper]

No code repository mentioned.

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

The paper has a data availability statement but it is vague ('available from the corresponding author on reasonable request') and no data or code is deposited in a public repository.

Evidence

direct quote[Statements and declarations]

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

absence[Statements and declarations]

No data repository deposit or accession numbers are reported.

absence[Materials and Methods, section 5.4]

Custom code (R scripts) is not shared in a public repository.

FAILReviewer 3· 95% conf

No data or code are deposited; the data availability statement is vague and inadequate.

Evidence

direct quote[Data Availability section]

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

absence[Data Availability section]

No repository deposit mentioned.

absence[Section 5.4]

Custom code not shared.

Methods are detailed enough for replication, including crossing design, field layout, data collection, and statistical analysis. Limitations are discussed (single location, single year). Conclusions are generally proportional, but some statements imply broader applicability than supported (e.g., 'can be used for' without multi-environment validation). Funding and conflicts of interest are reported. No trial registration or reporting guideline (e.g., STROBE) is mentioned.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper provides detailed methods, reports outcomes (including non-significant ones), discusses limitations, reaches conclusions proportional to the evidence, and includes funding/COI statements. A reporting guideline is not referenced.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, 5.2-5.4]

“The experimental unit consisted of 2 rows plots with 20 plants per row i.e., a total of 40 individuals of each family.”

direct quote[Conclusions]

“though these results were based on a single experiment, it provides basic insight into gene action for yield component and oil content in groundnut”

direct quote[Statements and declarations]

“The research leading to these results received funding from the Germany Academic Exchange Service/... Boubacar Sinare reports financial support was provided by...”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

The paper provides detailed methods and discusses limitations, but lacks a trial registration (not applicable), a reporting guideline checklist, and has some overclaiming in conclusions.

Evidence

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

“The mating design used was a 6 x 6 full diallel (all cross combinations including reciprocals) of the varieties.”

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 8]

“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”

direct quote[Statements and declarations]

“The research leading to these results received funding from the Germany Academic Exchange Service/ 10.13039/501100001655 Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst ( DAAD ) under the grant agreement N o 91672844”

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

Methods are detailed but overall reporting transparency is limited by lack of some systematic reporting elements.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 5.2, 5.3, 5.4]

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

direct quote[Section 4]

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

direct quote[Statements and declarations]

“The research leading to these results received funding from the Germany Academic Exchange Service”

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

Checked 47 references: 24 verified — 22 unresolved, 1 not checked.

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

This is a post-publication audit. The published work has moderate robustness: the core genetic findings (GCA/SCA estimates) are likely valid given the appropriate design, but an informed reader should weigh the unverified statistical assumptions, the missing data/code, the heritability discrepancy for SWD (additive variance 0.01 cannot produce reported h2 of 27%), and that 22 of 47 checked references could not be located in any registry — a signal that some citations may be fabricated or contain serious errors. A correction or independent re-analysis is warranted for the SWD heritability issue.

1.
HIGHstatistics
Correct the narrow-sense heritability for SWD in Table 7: additive variance=0.01, dominance variance=0.00, error variance=0.00 yields h2=100%, not 27.03%. Verify whether variance components are mislabeled or miscalculated, and issue a correction.
An internal contradiction in reported heritability undermines the paper's credibility; it must be resolved through a formal correction.
2.
HIGHdata code
Deposit the raw phenotypic data (trait measurements per plot) in a public repository (e.g., Dryad, Figshare) and add a proper data availability statement with the DOI in the Data Availability section.
The current data availability statement is a journal template, not an author response; the paper is data-driven, and reproducibility requires access to the raw data.
3.
HIGHdata code
Share all custom R analysis scripts (diallel analysis, heritability computation) in a public repository (e.g., GitHub with a Zenodo DOI) and reference the repository in the Methods.
Without the code, the heritability calculations and diallel analysis cannot be independently verified, which is a fundamental reproducibility gap.
4.
HIGHreporting
Verify the 22 references flagged as 'not found in any registry' and either replace them with verifiable sources or provide evidence that they are legitimate but uncatalogued (e.g., grey literature, institutional reports).
Unresolved references are a fabrication signal; readers cannot assess the premise or methods without confidence that cited works exist.
5.
HIGHreporting
Clarify the abstract's claim that broad-sense heritability ranges from 3.76% to 91.56% — the value 3.76% does not appear in Table 7 or anywhere in the paper; either add the missing trait or correct the range.
A reported range that cannot be found in the data constitutes an internal contradiction.
6.
HIGHstatistics
Provide exact p-values (e.g., p = 0.003) throughout the Results, replacing threshold inequalities (e.g., 'p < 0.05') in all tables and text.
Threshold p-values are less informative and prevent readers from assessing evidence strength; this is a standard reporting requirement.
7.
HIGHstatistics
Report effect sizes (e.g., mean differences, variance components) with 95% confidence intervals for all key comparisons (GCA, SCA, heritability).
The paper reports only point estimates and significance levels; confidence intervals would convey precision and support interpretation.
8.
HIGHreporting
Temper conclusions in the abstract and Discussion that imply broad applicability — replace 'can be used for' with 'may be useful for' or similar, given the single-location, single-year design.
Overclaiming generalizability from a non-replicated experiment is a common reviewer objection and may inflate the perceived value of the findings.
9.
MEDIUMrigor
Describe the randomization method used for assigning genotypes to plots (e.g., computer-generated random numbers) and specify the unit of randomization in Section 5.2.
The paper states genotypes were 'randomly arranged' but gives no procedure; this is a basic design detail needed for reproducibility.
10.
MEDIUMrigor
Add an a priori power analysis or sample-size justification for the diallel experiment in Section 5.2 or 5.4.
Power analysis helps readers assess whether the study was adequately sized to detect meaningful genetic effects; its absence is a standard design gap.
11.
MEDIUMrigor
Specify inclusion/exclusion criteria for plants (e.g., minimum plant stand per plot) and a plan for handling outliers in Section 5.2 or 5.4.
Without these criteria, data selection is opaque and potential biases cannot be evaluated.
12.
MEDIUMstatistics
Verify test assumptions (normality, homogeneity of variance) for ANOVA and diallel models, report the results (e.g., Shapiro-Wilk p-values, Levene's test), and describe any corrective actions taken if assumptions were violated.
Mentioning a 'normality test' without reporting results or actions leaves the validity of the inferential statistics unverifiable.
13.
MEDIUMreporting
Reference a relevant reporting guideline (e.g., ARRIVE for plant studies or the plant breeding checklist) in the Methods section.
Using a reporting guideline demonstrates commitment to transparency and helps readers evaluate the study's completeness.
14.
LOWcopyedit
Fix the inconsistent use of commas as decimal separators in Tables and Results (e.g., 175,71 g → 175.71 g) throughout.
Inconsistent decimal separators cause confusion and may be interpreted as data errors.
15.
LOWcopyedit
Correct the error DF=1 in Table 1 for DTH and other traits showing zero mean squares — likely a formatting error — and verify the underlying ANOVA model.
Zero error variance is impossible; this appears to be a table-layout issue that could mislead readers.

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

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