Topic is communicated accurately and effectively with comprehensive biochemical and contextual explanation
Research question is clearly stated, narrowly focused, and drives the investigation
Methodology is well‐justified, logically structured, and replicable with clear rationale for variable control
Minor lapses in English expression do not impede understanding but prevent absolute polish
Abrupt ending of the starch component description needs completion for coherence
Some redundancy in hypothesis phrasing could be tightened
Source material is applied coherently to both background theory and interpretation of results
Terminology (e.g., enzyme–substrate complex, ANOVA, standard deviation) is accurate and used consistently
Integration of background on rice chemistry and enzymatic activity demonstrates depth of understanding
Occasional reliance on secondary or non-peer-reviewed sources limits critical depth
Typographical errors in citations and text do not undermine meaning but reflect minor carelessness
Quantitative analysis is robust: means, standard deviations, graphs, ANOVA and Tukey tests are all correctly applied
Discussion links statistical outcomes to biochemical reasoning and contextualizes anomalies
Graphs with error bars enhance reliability and interpretation of trends
Interpretation of enzyme saturation versus substrate limitation is speculative without follow-up experiments
Discrepancy between reported p-values in text and table undermines numerical accuracy
Reflection on uncertainty and decision-making lacks evaluative depth
Structure is clear and appropriate throughout, with a full academic format and logical numbering
Tables, figures, and appendices are embedded and labelled, supporting readability and reproducibility
Minor misalignment of tables and inconsistent indentation in the table of contents reduces polish
Cramped formatting in some ANOVA tables and brief figure captions detract slightly from clarity
