peer review
2. The abstract is not properly written, with many flaws in organization, incomplete or fragmented statements, and grammatical errors.3. In the background, there are many "copy and paste" instances; the 1st and 3rd paragraphs are examples of plagiarism (Wikipedia).The objective and the significance of the study are not clearly stated.4. Materials and Methods lack the phytochemistry of the extract, the number of rats used, a toxicology study of the extract, etc.The authors mentioned a histological study in the abstract but no mention of this in the materials and methods, results, or discussion. 5. Results and discussion are poorly written and lack the scientific way of presenting the results and discussing them.6. Conclusion has no relevance to any findings the authors observed.7. Referencing and citations are not according to any standard systems.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.32388/jzs7wq
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.