Clear and specific contextualization of the research question within tomato physiology and osmosis
Thorough explanation of methodological considerations, linking each control to data reliability
Detailed, sequential procedural description with most variables and materials specified
Omitted details on probe calibration and fruit‐selection criteria, leaving minor ambiguities
Background digression on probe specifics interrupts the flow of the scientific context
Well‐structured raw data tables with correct headings and units
Relevant data processing steps performed (means, percentage changes, one‐way ANOVA)
Qualitative observations effectively linked to experimental variables
Inconsistent significant figures and rounding across tables
Uncertainties are noted but not propagated or applied consistently to processed results
Misapplication of ANOVA degrees of freedom and significance threshold hampers statistical validity
Conclusion directly addresses trends observed and links them to osmotic principles
Makes a correct, if brief, comparison to accepted scientific context (e.g., NaCl stress literature)
Conclusion overstates support for the hypothesis despite non‐significant ANOVA and contradictory trends
Literature comparison remains superficial, lacking quantitative depth
Identifies specific methodological weaknesses (temperature fluctuation, fruit variability, timing)
Proposes realistic improvements directly linked to each identified limitation
Demonstrates awareness of systematic errors (e.g., battery issues with balance)
Does not quantify or rank the relative impact of the identified weaknesses
Improvement rationales are brief and lack quantitative justification
