The paper has notable methodological weaknesses, particularly its reliance on correlational data without adequately addressing key confounders such as socio-economic factors and educational policies. The interpretation of negative correlations between school activities and creative thinking is insufficiently explored, lacking consideration of alternative explanations. Additionally, statistical inconsistencies, including the exclusion of programming as a predictor, raise concerns about model robustness. I recommend that the authors carefully address these issues to strengthen the study’s methodological rigor and enhance the clarity and reliability of its conclusions.
