Verified Rigor RecordRigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

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

Name: Verified Rigor Record — Growth and tuber yield responses of potato ( Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties to seed tuber size in northwest highlands of Ethiopia · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14586
Item: Growth and tuber yield responses of potato ( Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties to seed tuber size in northwest highlands of Ethiopia · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14586
Rating: 67
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: ModerateReviewer agreement: moderateEngine: 7.5.0Source: 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.

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

Rigor

Eight Dimensions1 pass · 5 warn · 1 fail

9 major claims9 supported

The introduction cites multiple references to establish the importance of potato as a food security crop and the yield gaps in Ethiopia. It acknowledges prior research on seed tuber size and variety effects, and presents a clear rationale for optimizing seed tuber size to improve productivity and profitability. The study objectives follow logically from the cited evidence.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

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

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

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

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

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

absence[Introduction]

Limitations of prior research are not explicitly addressed.

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

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

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 1-3]

“Many diverse and complex biotic and abiotic factors are contributing for low productivity of potato including inappropriate agronomic practices... Using optimum-sized and disease free seed tuber is a prim prerequisite for successful production of potatoes.”

direct quote[Introduction, final paragraph]

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“The paper notes that smallholder farmers use a wide range of seed tuber sizes without considering variety, implying a gap in prior recommendations.”

WARNReviewer 3· 75% conf

The paper cites prior work on potato productivity constraints and seed tuber size effects, and provides a logical rationale for the study, but does not address limitations of prior research.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 1-4]

“Many diverse and complex biotic and abiotic factors are contributing for low productivity of potato including inappropriate agronomic practices, prevalence of disease and insect pests, poor soil fertility management, high cost of seed tubers, inadequate storage and marketing facilities”

direct quote[Introduction, final paragraph]

“Optimizing the seed tuber size is therefore necessary to reduce the seeding rate and improve the economical production of potato”

absence[Introduction]

Limitations of prior research are not discussed.

The randomization method is not described (only 'RCBD' is stated). No power analysis or sample size calculation is reported. Inclusion/exclusion criteria for the experimental plots or plants are not specified. Outlier handling is not mentioned. Controls are not explicitly described (no negative control treatment). Independent replication is not reported. The study does report the unit of randomization (plot), and distinguishes between gross and net plot areas, which partially addresses replicate distinction.

Sub-criteria

controlsNOT REPORTED

power analysisNOT REPORTED

blinding levelsN/A

outlier handlingNOT REPORTED

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionNOT REPORTED

randomization methodNOT REPORTED

replicate distinctionINADEQUATE

independent replicationNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

The study design is a randomized complete block design with factorial arrangement, but several key design elements are not reported or are inadequately described.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, section 2.3]

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

absence[Materials and methods]

No power analysis or sample size calculation is reported.

direct quote[Materials and methods, section 2.3]

“Each plot has 3.75 m width and 3 m length with gross and net plot areas of 11.25 m2 and 5.4 m2, respectively.”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

The study uses a randomized complete block design with factorial arrangement, but lacks reporting on randomization method, blinding, power analysis, and explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Evidence

absence[Section 2.3]

Randomization method is not described.

absence[Section 2.3]

Blinding is not mentioned.

absence[Section 2.3]

No power analysis or sample size calculation is reported.

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

The study uses a randomized complete block design with factorial arrangement and three replications, but lacks reporting on randomization method, power analysis, replicate distinction, outlier handling, controls, and independent replication.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.3, paragraph 1]

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

absence[Section 2.3]

Randomization method is not described.

absence[Section 2]

Power analysis is absent.

Since this is a plant (potato) field study, the biological variables sub-criteria (sex, age/weight/health, species/strain/source, housing conditions, demographics) are not applicable as field-crop studies do not involve animal or human subjects. The applicable sub-criteria are essentially limited to the description of the plant genetic materials (varieties) and their origin, which is reported for the improved varieties (Belete, Shonkolla, Gudanie) with release centers and years, and for the local variety by name only. This is considered adequate for the study type.

Sub-criteria

demographicsN/A

sex reportedN/A

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthN/A

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 95% conf

This is a field experiment with potato varieties, not involving animal or human subjects, so biological variables such as sex, age, weight, and housing conditions are not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, section 2.2]

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

direct quote[Title and Introduction]

“Growth and tuber yield responses of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties to seed tuber size”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper adequately reports variety characteristics, seed tuber size categories, and site conditions, but does not report sex, age, or health status of the plants (which are not applicable for potato field trials).

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.2]

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

direct quote[Section 2.3]

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

direct quote[Section 2.1]

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

FAILReviewer 3· 85% conf

The paper does not report sex, age/weight/health status, species/strain with RRID, housing conditions, or demographics; only the plant variety and seed tuber size are described.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract, Section 2.1]

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

direct quote[Section 2.2]

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

The study involves only plant material (potato varieties) grown in a farmer's field. No human participants, animal subjects, or non-public identifiable data are involved. Therefore, IRB/ethics committee approval, informed consent, and IACUC statements are not required.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentN/A

irb ethics statementN/A

regulatory complianceN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 95% conf

This is a field experiment with potato plants, not involving human or animal subjects, so ethical approvals are not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, section 2.1]

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

N/AReviewer 2· 95% conf

The study involves field trials on potato varieties, which does not involve human participants, animals, or non-public subject-level data, so ethical approvals are not applicable.

Evidence

paraphrase[Sections 2.1-2.4]

“The experiment was conducted on farmer's field using potato seed tubers; no mention of human participants, animals, or ethical approvals.”

N/AReviewer 3· 95% conf

The study involves field trials on potato plants with no human or animal subjects; ethics approvals are not required.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract]

“Field experiment was conducted on farmer's field”

The potato varieties are named and their sources (research centers) are given, which is adequate for a field trial. However, no RRIDs or catalog numbers are provided, which is not standard for crop varieties. The statistical software (SAS) is identified but version 9.2 is mentioned, which is adequate. Fertilizers (NPS, urea) are named but no catalog numbers or sources are given, which is acceptable for standard agricultural inputs. No antibodies, cell lines, or mycoplasma testing are applicable.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedINADEQUATE

organisms identifiedADEQUATE

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

Key resources are partially identified. The potato varieties are named, but seed tuber sources are not specified, and software is identified without version.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, section 2.2]

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

direct quote[Materials and methods, section 2.6]

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

direct quote[Materials and methods, section 2.4]

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

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

The paper identifies potato varieties and seed tuber sizes, but does not provide catalog numbers, RRIDs, or authentication details for the varieties, and the statistical software is identified without version.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.2]

direct quote[Section 2.6]

“Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) version 9.2”

direct quote[Section 2.4]

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

N/AReviewer 3· 90% conf

The study uses potato varieties and standard agronomic inputs (fertilizer, seed tubers) with no key biological or chemical resources requiring RRIDs or authentication; no bespoke software is used.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.6]

“Statistical Analysis Software [] version 9.2”

absence[Section 2]

No antibodies, cell lines, or specialized biological reagents are used.

The paper names the statistical tests used (ANOVA, LSD) and identifies the software (SAS version 9.2). However, it does not report verification of test assumptions (normality, homogeneity of variance). Exact p-values are not reported; only thresholds (P < 0.001, P < 0.01, P < 0.05) are given. Effect sizes and confidence intervals are not reported. Data are presented as means with LSD and CV, but individual data points are not shown. The mathematical plausibility of the reported means and LSD values cannot be fully verified without raw data, but no obvious arithmetic errors are detected.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesINADEQUATE

effect sizes ciNOT REPORTED

data presentationINADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedNOT REPORTED

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

Statistical tests are named and software is identified, but several key elements are missing or inadequate, including verification of assumptions, exact p-values, effect sizes with confidence intervals, and individual data points.

Evidence

direct quote[Materials and methods, section 2.6]

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

direct quote[Results and discussion, various sections]

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

absence[Results and discussion]

Effect sizes and confidence intervals are not reported.

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The paper names statistical tests (ANOVA, LSD) and identifies software, but does not verify test assumptions, report exact p-values (only ranges), or provide effect sizes with confidence intervals.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.6]

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

direct quote[Section 3.1.1]

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

absence[Tables 1-6]

No effect sizes or confidence intervals are reported.

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

Statistical tests are named (two-way ANOVA, LSD), but assumptions verification, exact p-values (reported as thresholds), effect sizes/CI, and individual data points are missing; error bars (LSD) are defined.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2.6]

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

direct quote[Tables 1-4]

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

absence[Section 2.6]

Assumptions verification is absent.

The paper includes a data availability statement: 'Data will be made available on request.' This is considered reported_but_inadequate because it does not specify a concrete access mechanism or repository. No code was used beyond standard statistical software, so code sharing is not applicable. No repository deposit or accession numbers are provided for the data.

Sub-criteria

code sharingN/A

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 90% conf

A data availability statement is present but vague ('on request'), and no code sharing is mentioned. No repository deposit or accession numbers are provided.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“Data will be made available on request.”

absence[Data availability statement]

No repository deposit or accession numbers are provided.

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper includes a data availability statement, but it is vague ('available on request') without specifying a repository or access mechanism.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“Data will be made available on request.”

absence[Data availability statement]

No repository deposit or accession numbers are mentioned.

WARNReviewer 3· 85% conf

A data availability statement exists but is vague ('on request'), with no repository deposit, accession numbers, or shared code.

Evidence

direct quote[Funding statement section]

“Data availability statement Data will be made available on request.”

The methods are described in sufficient detail for replication, including experimental design, management practices, and data collection procedures. Limitations are discussed implicitly through the recommendation for further optimization. Conclusions are generally proportional to the evidence. A funding statement is provided ('This research did not receive any specific grant'). However, no trial registration is present (not applicable for this type of study), and no reporting guideline (e.g., CONSORT for field trials) is referenced. The conflict of interest statement is present.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedINADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

The paper provides a reasonably complete methods section and discusses limitations, but lacks trial registration, a reporting guideline checklist, and a funding statement (though it states no funding was received).

Evidence

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

“The experiment was laid out in factorial arrangement using randomized complete block design with three replications in factorial arrangement.”

absence[Materials and methods]

No reporting guideline is referenced.

direct quote[Funding statement]

“This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.”

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

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

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2]

“The treatments were laid down in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) in a factorial arrangement with three replications. Each plot has 3.75 m width and 3 m length with gross and net plot areas of 11.25 m2 and 5.4 m2, respectively.”

absence[Section 2]

No reporting guideline is mentioned.

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

“This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors declare no competing interests.”

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

Methods are sufficiently detailed for replication, but there is no trial registration, reporting guideline checklist, explicit acknowledgment of all outcomes reported, and no limitations discussion; funding and COI are provided.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2]

absence[Section 4]

Limitations are not discussed.

direct quote[Funding statement, Declaration of interests statement]

“This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. [...] The authors declare no competing interests.”

11 copyedit issues flagged: mostly typo, grammar, clarity.

Checked 36 references: 11 verified — 25 unresolved.

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

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