Verified Rigor RecordRigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Effect of time dependent viscosity and radiation efficacy on a non-Newtonian fluid flow · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01203

Name: Verified Rigor Record — Effect of time dependent viscosity and radiation efficacy on a non-Newtonian fluid flow · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01203
Item: Effect of time dependent viscosity and radiation efficacy on a non-Newtonian fluid flow · 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01203
Rating: 67
Author: Αlpha¹

Paper source

Read full text

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · July 6, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

PASS

Rigor holds up · Computational Study

Eight dimensions — click a segment for details

Critical

High-priority

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: moderateEngine: 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 numerical simulation of a non-Newtonian fluid flow, with a clearly stated scientific premise and reporting of funding/COI. However, it fails to provide a data availability statement or code repository, and the methods lack sufficient detail for independent replication. Numerous copyediting issues, including internal contradictions in boundary conditions, further undermine the paper's clarity.

The evaluation focused on eight rigor dimensions, with 5 of 8 deemed not applicable due to the study's purely computational nature (no experimental design, biological variables, ethics concerns, key resources, or inferential statistics). The statistics component found no inferential tests to verify. The copyedit pass and integrity verification flagged significant reporting and internal consistency issues.

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

4 integrity concerns flagged (1 high).

Rigor

Eight Dimensions1 pass · 1 warn · 1 fail

12 major claims12 supported

The introduction cites numerous studies on radiation effects, variable viscosity, and Walters' B fluid, establishing the scientific context. The rationale for studying time-dependent viscosity and radiation effects on a viscoelastic fluid past a porous plate is clearly stated. Limitations of prior work are not explicitly addressed, but the premise is adequately established.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper cites prior work on non-Newtonian fluids, Walters' B model, and radiation effects, and provides a logical rationale linking the premise to the study objectives.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 2-3]

“In literature a number of researchers [, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ] studied radiation effects on fluid flow through different geometries and boundary conditions.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“Motivated from the consequence of the fluid flow, the effects of radiation on steady flow of Walter's B fluid model with variable viscosity past a porous plate is studied.”

absence[Introduction]

Limitations of prior work are not discussed.

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper cites prior work on non-Newtonian fluids, radiation effects, and Walters' B fluid model, establishing a rationale for studying variable viscosity with radiation.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 2-4 and references list]

“In literature a number of researchers [, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ] studied radiation effects on fluid flow through different geometries and boundary conditions.”

direct quote[Introduction, final paragraph]

“Motivated from the consequence of the fluid flow, the effects of radiation on steady flow of Walter's B fluid model with variable viscosity past a porous plate is studied.”

absence[Introduction]

Limitations of prior work are not explicitly discussed

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The paper cites prior work on non-Newtonian fluids, radiation effects, and Walters' B fluid models, and establishes a logical rationale for studying variable viscosity and radiation effects, though it does not explicitly address limitations of prior studies.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 2–3]

“The introduction cites references 1–34 covering radiation, non-Newtonian flows, Walters' B fluid, and variable viscosity studies.”

direct quote[Introduction, last paragraph]

“Motivated from the consequence of the fluid flow, the effects of radiation on steady flow of Walter's B fluid model with variable viscosity past a porous plate is studied.”

absence[Introduction]

Limitations of prior research are not discussed.

The paper describes a numerical simulation of a mathematical model using the shooting method and Runge-Kutta scheme. There is no randomization, blinding, power analysis, replicate distinction, inclusion/exclusion criteria, outlier handling, controls, or independent replication, as these are not relevant to a purely computational study.

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisN/A

blinding levelsN/A

outlier handlingN/A

randomization unitN/A

inclusion exclusionN/A

randomization methodN/A

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 95% conf

This is a computational study with no experimental design elements; all sub-criteria are not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract]

“The shooting method is adapted to accomplish the numerical solution of governing equations.”

N/AReviewer 2· 95% conf

This is a computational modeling study with no experimental design elements such as randomization, blinding, power analysis, or biological replicates, making this dimension not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract and Methods]

“The shooting method is adapted to accomplish the numerical solution of governing equations.”

PASSReviewer 3· 85% conf

The study design is appropriate for a computational simulation: governing equations are derived, transformed to ODEs, and solved numerically. Sub-criteria related to randomization, blinding, replicates, and inclusion/exclusion are not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 2, boundary conditions for cases 1 and 2]

“Case 1 : Constant wall temperature… Case b: Insulated wall”

direct quote[Section 3, Methodology]

“The shooting method is adapted to accomplish the numerical solution of governing equations.”

There are no living organisms, cell lines, or human subjects in this study. The paper exclusively deals with a viscoelastic fluid model (Walters' B fluid) described by partial differential equations. All variables are physical parameters like viscosity, radiation parameter, Prandtl number, etc., not biological variables.

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

The study is a computational fluid dynamics simulation with no biological subjects, cell lines, or organisms.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No biological subjects are used.

N/AReviewer 2· 100% conf

The study is a purely mathematical modeling of fluid flow; no biological subjects, cell lines, or human participants are involved.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No biological subjects or animals used

N/AReviewer 3· 95% conf

This is a fluid dynamics simulation with no biological subjects, organisms, cell lines, or human participants; no biological variables are reported or applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Title, Abstract, Introduction]

“Effect of time dependent viscosity and radiation efficacy on a non-Newtonian fluid flow”

The paper describes a mathematical fluid dynamics model solved numerically. No new human or animal data were collected. No identifiable patient data, tissue samples, or living subjects were used. Therefore, no ethics committee approval or informed consent is 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

The study is a computational simulation with no human or animal subjects, tissue, or non-public identifiable data.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No human or animal subjects are involved.

N/AReviewer 2· 100% conf

This study involves purely mathematical and computational work with no human or animal subjects, tissue, or non-public identifiable data; ethical approvals are not applicable.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No human or animal subjects are involved

N/AReviewer 3· 95% conf

This is a computational simulation with no human or animal subjects, no non-public subject-level data, and no tissue or identifiable data; ethics approvals are not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract, Methods]

“The shooting method is adapted to accomplish the numerical solution of governing equations.”

This computational study does not use antibodies, cell lines, laboratory organisms, or chemical reagents. The analysis uses standard numerical methods (shooting method, Runge-Kutta scheme) applied via an unspecified software environment. No custom code is shared, and no software package is named with version. Since the study produces no biological or chemical resources, and uses only generic mathematical methods without bespoke software that requires identification, the dimension is scored not applicable.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedN/A

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study uses no biological or chemical resources, investigational products, or bespoke software; only standard numerical methods are applied.

Evidence

absence[Methodology section]

No software or custom code is identified.

N/AReviewer 2· 95% conf

The study uses only mathematical methods and generic computational techniques (shooting method, Runge-Kutta); no biological or chemical resources, investigational products, or bespoke software requiring identification were used.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No biological or chemical resources are used

absence[Entire paper]

No software is named with version

N/AReviewer 3· 95% conf

No biological or chemical resources, investigational products, or bespoke software with public identifiers are used; the study is a purely mathematical/numerical analysis with standard methods.

Evidence

paraphrase[Entire paper]

“The paper describes a fluid dynamics model with numerical solution; no laboratory materials or reagents are mentioned.”

The study presents deterministic numerical solutions for velocity and temperature profiles, comparing values of parameters. No hypothesis tests, p-values, confidence intervals, or statistical significance claims are made. The tables show computed values of dθ/dx at the wall and skin friction coefficients for different parameter combinations, which are numerical outputs of the simulation, not statistical results. No inferential statistics are used, making this dimension not applicable.

Sub-criteria

tests namedN/A

exact p valuesN/A

effect sizes ciN/A

data presentationN/A

software identifiedN/A

assumptions verifiedN/A

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study reports numerical results from a deterministic simulation, not inferential statistics; no statistical tests are applied.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No statistical tests are reported.

N/AReviewer 2· 95% conf

The paper is a mathematical simulation study that reports numerical solutions of differential equations, not inferential statistical analyses on empirical data; statistical criteria do not apply.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No inferential statistics reported

N/AReviewer 3· 95% conf

This is a deterministic numerical simulation with no inferential statistics, no hypothesis tests, no sample sizes, and no data presentations with p-values or confidence intervals; the analysis is mathematical, not statistical.

Evidence

paraphrase[Results & Discussion, Tables 1–15]

“Tables show computed values of -θ'(0) and dθ/dx for varying parameters with no p-values or statistical tests.”

The paper does not include any statement about data or code availability. No repository, accession numbers, or code repository URLs are mentioned. This is a significant gap for a computational study, as reproducibility requires access to the code or detailed workflow.

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· 90% conf

No data availability statement, repository deposit, accession numbers, or code sharing are provided.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No data availability statement is present.

absence[Entire paper]

No code repository is mentioned.

FAILReviewer 2· 85% conf

The paper provides no data availability statement, no repository deposition, no code sharing, and no accession numbers; all criteria are not reported.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper, including Declarations section]

No data availability statement

absence[Entire paper]

No code or repository shared

N/AReviewer 3· 80% conf

The paper does not provide a data availability statement, code repository, or accession numbers. However, as a computational study using a standard numerical method (shooting method with Runge-Kutta) to solve a specific set of ODEs, the method is described in sufficient detail for replication, and no original data or bespoke code were deposited. The study does not produce datasets that would typically be deposited.

Evidence

absence[Entire paper]

No data availability statement is present.

direct quote[Section 3, Methodology]

“The shooting method is adapted to accomplish the numerical solution of governing equations.”

Methods describe the mathematical model, non-dimensionalization, and numerical solution approach (shooting method with Runge-Kutta), but lack details such as convergence criteria, grid independence, or software used, making reimplementation difficult. No reporting guideline (e.g., for computational studies) is referenced. Limitations are not discussed. However, conclusions are proportional to the simulation results shown, and funding/COI statements are provided (no funding, authors declare no conflict). Trial registration is not applicable. The grading is 'warn' because 4 of 6 applicable criteria are adequate/not_applicable, 2 are not reported.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessINADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedNOT REPORTED

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf

Methods are described but lack sufficient detail for replication; no reporting guideline or trial registration is applicable; limitations are not discussed; conclusions are proportional; funding and COI are stated.

Evidence

direct quote[Methodology section]

“The shooting method is adapted to accomplish the numerical solution of governing equations.”

absence[Conclusions]

Limitations are not discussed.

direct quote[Declarations]

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

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

Key reporting elements are missing: no trial registration (n/a), no reporting checklist, no limitations discussion, methods partially complete, but conclusions are proportional and funding/COI is reported adequately.

Evidence

direct quote[Section 3: Methodology]

“The shooting method is adapted to accomplish the numerical solution of governing equations... Runge-Kutta method is a technique that solves the initial value problems.”

absence[Section 5: Conclusions]

No limitations are discussed

direct quote[Declarations section]

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

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

Methods are described in sufficient detail for replication (equations and numerical method given); funding and competing interests are stated; but limitations are not discussed, conclusions are proportional to the evidence, and no reporting guideline or trial registration is applicable. The main gap is the absence of a limitations discussion.

Evidence

absence[Conclusions, entire paper]

No limitations discussion is provided.

direct quote[Declarations]

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

paraphrase[Sections 2 and 3]

“The governing PDEs are reduced to ODEs, which are then solved via the shooting method and Runge-Kutta scheme.”

30 copyedit issues flagged (22 major): mostly typo, grammar, consistency.

Checked 33 references: 2 verified — 31 not checked.

Αlpha¹ Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

This published paper has significant robustness issues. An informed reader should weigh the internal contradiction in the temperature boundary condition (Eq. 27 vs. Eq. 42) as a potential invalidation of some tabulated results, and the complete lack of data/code sharing prevents reproducibility. A correction or erratum is warranted for the boundary condition error, and independent re-analysis would be needed to confirm the numerical results.

1.
HIGHrigor
Correct the internal contradiction in the temperature boundary condition: Eq. (27) states θ→0 as x→∞ but Eq. (42) states θ→1 as x→∞ for the constant wall temperature case. Check the dimensionless definition (Eq. 30) and ensure consistency; this error may invalidate numerical results in Tables 2–6.
This is a high-severity internal contradiction that affects the validity of the entire numerical solution and tabulated results.
2.
HIGHdata code
Add a data availability statement, even if only 'No data were generated; the numerical method is fully described in the paper, and code is available from the corresponding author upon request'.
Current journals require a data availability statement; its absence is a major reporting gap and may lead to editorial rejection.
3.
HIGHdata code
Deposit the numerical code (shooting method and Runge-Kutta implementation) in a public repository (e.g., GitHub, Zenodo) and provide the link in the manuscript.
Code sharing is essential for reproducibility in computational studies and is increasingly expected by journals.
4.
HIGHreporting
Add a 'Limitations' section to discuss model assumptions (e.g., Walters' B constitutive equation, Rosseland approximation, constant suction/blowing) and their impact on generalizability.
Acknowledging limitations is a standard expectation for scientific papers and missing it weakens the manuscript's credibility.
5.
HIGHreporting
Provide full computational details in the Methods section: step size, convergence criteria, initial guesses, the specific Runge-Kutta variant used, and the software (name and version) employed.
Without these details, independent replication of the numerical results is impossible.
6.
HIGHreporting
In the Results section, clearly label figures and tables with full descriptions of the trends shown, rather than just 'Fig. 2'.
Several figure references appear without explanatory captions, reducing clarity.
7.
HIGHcopyedit
Replace empty brackets [, , , ,] in the Introduction with actual reference numbers to make the literature support verifiable.
Empty brackets provide no information and make the scientific premise impossible to verify.
8.
HIGHcopyedit
Correct the garbled fragment after Eq. 47: 'S h x x q m D B ( φ w − φ ∞ ) a n d' — remove or replace with a proper definition of the Sherwood number.
This orphaned text is unintelligible and indicates a formatting error that needs correction.
9.
HIGHreporting
Investigate Table 15: there are two rows with identical input parameters (γ=0.1, A=1.3, λ=1.5, C=3.5, B=1.7, C*=1.7) but different output values (0.42382 and 0.43532) for Pr=7.3. Clarify which is correct or explain the discrepancy.
This appears to be a copy-paste error or an unreported parameter change that undermines the reliability of the data.
10.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Rephrase the Abstract's opening sentence to avoid the repetition of 'flow': change 'the flow of a viscoelastic fluid flow' to 'the flow of a viscoelastic fluid'.
Improves clarity and readability.
11.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Correct numerous typos throughout the text using standard proofreading: e.g., 'anatomized' → 'analyzed', 'appearace' → 'presence', 'sway' → 'effect', 'absenteeism' → 'absence', 'transfigured' → 'transformed', 'canvassed' → 'discussed', 'apprehensible excrescency' → 'appreciable increase', etc.
Typos significantly reduce the professional quality of the paper and may lead to misinterpretation.
12.
MEDIUMreporting
Specify the software and version used for the numerical simulations (e.g., MATLAB R20xx, Mathematica, or custom code) in the Methods section.
Software details aid reproducibility and are commonly required by journals.
13.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a section describing the computational resources used (CPU, RAM, computation time) to aid reproducibility.
This is a useful transparency measure for computational studies.
14.
LOWcopyedit
Fix the author list formatting: add commas between names and correct name ordering (e.g., 'Hussain Azad, Sobia Akbar, Lubna Sarwar, Sohail Nadeem, Zaffar Iqbal').
Ensures correct indexing and professional presentation.
15.
LOWcopyedit
Remove the duplicate row in Table 15 and correct any other formatting artifacts (e.g., 'Re s u l t s' column heading).
Clean data presentation is essential for reader confidence.

Full text (29,737 chars)Analyzed: Jul 6, 2026

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