Comprehensive, well‐structured background with accurate definitions and context
Clear tables, figures and glossary make the topic accessible to non‐specialists
Detailed methodological description with explicit hypotheses guiding the design
Research question is overly broad, covering many variables and time points
Key methodological details omitted (e.g., TEER measurement)
Citation of permeability formula source is missing
Physicochemical characterization of nanoparticles (size, charge) is incomplete
Terminology and specialized concepts (e.g., TEER, Papp, zeta potential) are used accurately and consistently
Glossary and integrated citations demonstrate coherent and effective use of sources
Core literature on BBB physiology and assay protocols is applied appropriately to justify experimental choices
Some background data rely on outdated sources (e.g., 2017 prevalence statistic)
Critical comparison with the most recent studies is limited
Data are processed methodically with identification of outliers and acknowledgment of experimental error
Discussion links findings back to research aims and proposes realistic methodological improvements
Argumentation is generally coherent, with clear connections between results and conclusions
No statistical significance testing or confidence intervals are presented
Criteria for data exclusion and outlier removal are not quantitatively justified
Negative permeability values are not discussed, leaving interpretive gaps
Some speculative leaps toward clinical application are insufficiently substantiated
Overall report structure is clear and logically ordered with comprehensive table of contents
Consistent formatting (font, spacing, page numbering) facilitates readability
Several figures are pixelated or lack clear legends, hindering interpretation
Long tables disrupt narrative flow and are not moved to appendices
Inconsistent indentation and duplicated captions reduce layout polish
