The paper presents several concerns requiring critical scrutiny. Key results, such as adsorption efficiency and supercapacitor performance, appear overly optimistic, with limited discussion of real-world variability or operational challenges. Methodological gaps, including missing calibration details and controls for reproducibility, hinder reliability. Data presentation selectively emphasizes favorable outcomes, often lacking error bars or statistical validation. Comparisons with existing materials appear biased, highlighting suboptimal alternatives to support the nanocomposite’s claims. Inconsistent interpretation of spectroscopic data and insufficient raw evidence weaken key conclusions. Misaligned citations and the absence of independent verification further raise doubts about the transparency and reliability of the study.
