Specific and well‐contextualized research question linked to river management and biodiversity monitoring
Clear listing of methodological controls with rationale in a table format
Procedural description largely reproducible with equipment list and site photograph
Some ambiguities remain in the description (e.g., exact flow‐meter positioning, foot-stomping force)
Rationale for discrete velocity values is not fully justified with literature or natural flow data
Monitoring frequency and instrument precision for abiotic factors (pH, light) are not fully explained
Data recording and processing are communicated clearly and precisely with labeled tables, units, and error bars
Appropriate and accurate data processing (means, totals, ANOVA) with correct statistics reported
Comprehensive breakdown of ANOVA calculations demonstrates strong understanding
Consideration of uncertainties is incomplete (no propagation of instrumental or counting error)
Error bars on the graph are undefined (SD vs. SE not specified)
Validation of ANOVA assumptions and worked numerical examples are omitted
Conclusion clearly restates hypothesis outcome and links directly to ANOVA results
Justification of rejecting the null hypothesis is consistent with presented analysis
Comparison to accepted scientific context is superficial and lacks quantitative literature support
Occasional lapses in variable terminology reduce precision (e.g., referencing temperature instead of velocity)
Specific methodological weaknesses are identified (e.g., variable stomping force, pH fluctuations, species misidentification)
Realistic improvements are proposed that address identified limitations (e.g., controlled lab replication, additional velocity levels, seasonal sampling)
Relative impact of identified weaknesses on validity is not analyzed
Improvements are not fully explained in terms of how they would mitigate each limitation
