Research question embedded in a specific biological and industrial context
Clear step-by-step protocol with volumes, temperatures and replicates
Key methodological considerations (controls, calibration, replicates) are identified and described
Some repetition in background detracts from concision
Justification for trial number and reaction time is missing
Critical methodological details (exact enzyme concentration after dilution, mixing method) are omitted
Recording and processing of raw and processed data is communicated clearly and with precision
Accurate data processing (means, SD, ANOVA, post-hoc) largely free of arithmetic error
Uncertainty propagation is not carried through to processed data or graphs
Some formatting inconsistencies (figure numbering, unit notation) remain
Statistical assumptions and effect sizes are not discussed
Conclusion is fully consistent with analysed data and explicitly justified by means, SD and statistical significance
Relevant comparison with peer‐reviewed studies reinforces and contextualises findings
Conclusion paragraph ends abruptly without full closure
Could more fully discuss substrate matrix effects on glucometer readings
Specific methodological weaknesses are identified and their relative impacts are explained
Realistic improvements are linked to the identified limitations and their effects on accuracy
Some improvement suggestions could more precisely quantify expected gains
Discussion of error magnitude could be more detailed