ScienceGuardians prevents hostile interactions
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 paper presents methodological inconsistencies, particularly in its systematic review, where 370 articles are claimed to be analyzed, but only 78 are cited, raising concerns about selection bias. The bibliometric analysis appears speculative, with forward-dated claims about 2024 and 2025 that may not be fully supported by actual data. I urge the authors to resolve these concerns to enhance the study’s methodological robustness and ensure greater clarity and reliability in its conclusions.