Research question is focused and embedded in a specific and appropriate biological context.
Methodological considerations are clearly explained with rationale for variable choices.
Procedure description—including volumes, concentrations and dilution calculations—allows reproducibility.
Comprehensive apparatus diagrams and materials tables enhance clarity and facilitate replication.
Minor ambiguities remain in the exact submersion depth and angle of the CO₂ probe.
Contextual background could be strengthened by situating the work in a clearer industrial or ecological scenario.
Raw and processed data are communicated with clear tables, units and error bars.
Statistical processing (means, SD, regression, r, r²) is correctly carried out and applied.
Graphs and box‐plots are well‐labelled and support interpretation.
Uncertainties are listed but not propagated through calculated rates.
Typographical and transcription slips (e.g., ‘2188’ vs ‘2118’) affect precision.
Statistical reporting omits p-values and critical‐value references; two‐variable statistics labels are unclear.
Conclusion is fully relevant to the research question and quantitatively consistent with analysis (r = 0.986, plateau effects).
Strong comparison to accepted biochemical context, citing literature on B-vitamin roles in respiration.
Justification is logical and ties findings back to mechanistic explanations.
Wording occasionally overstates causality beyond the correlational design.
Minor data‐reference errors persist in the narrative.
Specific methodological weaknesses are identified and their impacts on data reliability are explained.
Realistic improvements are proposed that directly address identified limitations.
Evaluation table comprehensively links flaws to enhancements, demonstrating reflective depth.
Explanations of some improvements are brief and lack detail on implementation.
Suggested extensions (e.g., environmental variables) are not specified or developed into concrete designs.
