ScienceGuardians hosts publishers too
Secure Environment: Verified contributors only, ensuring meaningful and responsible discussions. Members can stay anonymous while verified, ensuring legitimacy and accountability.
Combatting Misconduct: A fortress against anonymous intimidation and coordinated campaigns, fostering evidence-based dialogue and protecting the academic community.
Resources and Training: Access classified content, participate in enlightening debates, and stay at the forefront of ethical practices.
Hack-Proof Platform: Your privacy is paramount. The identity information of users choosing to remain anonymous is securely stored offline.
Our Commitment:
Integrity and Accountability: Every account verified for credible and responsible engagement.
Inclusivity and Fairness: A platform where all voices in the scientific community are respected.
Support and Collaboration: Helping resolve issues delicately and constructively.
Participant
The study has notable methodological shortcomings, including the absence of a control group, inconsistent microbial sampling, and unclear compost maturity assessments. Discrepancies in microbial composition trends, pH stability, and carbon-nitrogen ratio also require further clarification. I encourage the authors to address these issues to enhance the study’s scientific rigor.
I also have a question about your study. While the research provides valuable insights into in-vessel composting, could you clarify how compost maturity was assessed beyond the Solvita test? The variability in Solvita scores across different months raises questions; were other validation methods used? Also, regarding microbial diversity, were statistical analyses performed to assess significant differences across composting stages?