This paper exhibits critical methodological and statistical flaws that significantly compromise its scientific credibility. The experimental design fails to incorporate essential elements such as proper randomization, adequate control groups, and sufficient sample size, all of which are fundamental for minimizing bias and ensuring the reproducibility of results. Assumptions necessary for statistical analysis, including data normality and variance homogeneity, are neither tested nor reported, casting doubt on the validity of the findings. Furthermore, the lack of clarity in sample handling procedures and the absence of error propagation analysis further diminish the reliability of the reported outcomes.
Key claims, such as the synergistic effects of wood vinegar (WV), humic acid (HA), and seaweed extract (SW) on mango productivity, lack robust statistical support and are inconsistently presented. Correlations between treatments and physiological parameters, such as nutrient acquisition and fruit quality indices, are overstated without sufficient statistical or mechanistic evidence. Additionally, discrepancies between reported data in tables and figures and their interpretation in the narrative suggest internal inconsistencies and potential misrepresentation of results.
The paper inadequately details critical experimental conditions, such as environmental controls and soil management practices, leaving room for unaddressed confounding variables. The vague description of treatments and their application timing undermines the study’s reproducibility and raises questions about the validity of the observed effects. Furthermore, the choice of specific doses and combinations of biostimulants is insufficiently justified within the context of existing agronomic practices, limiting the practical relevance and scalability of the findings.
Conclusions asserting the efficacy of the tested biostimulants are generalized and often unsupported by the presented data. Inconsistent trends and unexplained variability in results are either minimized or ignored, creating a biased narrative favoring positive outcomes. The lack of raw data transparency, calibration details for analytical instruments, and error margins for key measurements further erodes confidence in the study’s findings. Collectively, these methodological and interpretative shortcomings undermine the paper’s contribution to advancing sustainable agricultural practices and warrant a reevaluation of its scientific rigor.