This paper suffers from critical methodological and statistical shortcomings that undermine its scientific validity. The experimental design lacks essential elements such as proper randomization, adequate controls, and sufficient sample sizes, compromising the reliability and reproducibility of the findings. Assumptions underlying statistical analyses, such as data normality and variance homogeneity, are neither tested nor discussed, casting doubt on the robustness of conclusions. Furthermore, insufficient details on sample handling, error propagation, and environmental conditions weaken the study’s credibility.
Key claims, such as the synergistic effects of humic acid (HA) and humic acid-amino acid combinations (HA+AA) on maize productivity and physiological parameters, are overstated without adequate statistical or mechanistic support. Inconsistencies between data in tables, figures, and the narrative suggest potential misrepresentation or selective reporting. Vague descriptions of treatments, dosages, and application timing further hinder reproducibility and raise doubts about the validity of the observed effects.
The conclusions are generalized and unsupported by the data, with unexplained variability and non-significant results minimized or ignored. The lack of raw data transparency, calibration details, and error margins diminishes confidence in the findings. These methodological and interpretative flaws significantly limit the paper’s contribution to advancing agricultural science and warrant careful reevaluation of its scientific rigor.