The paper shows promise but raises several concerns. Methodological transparency is limited, particularly in the description of statistical analyses and data handling, which could impact reproducibility. Key claims lack sufficient supporting evidence or alignment with cited references, and some overgeneralizations weaken the argument’s rigor. Ethical considerations, including potential bias in the sample, should be more thoroughly addressed, and inconsistencies in data representation require clarification. Further scrutiny of references is needed to verify their relevance and accuracy.
