-The statics analysis is wrong, the experimental design as well as the scientific question cannot been answered by a one-way ANOVA. Also, a couple of control groups are missing.
Thanks a lot for your help. Kindly my statistical Analysis:
All obtained data were reported as mean ± S.D. The results were examined using one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's multiple comparison tests. When normality failed, non-parametric one-way ANOVAs (Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks, followed by Dunn's post hoc test) were done and when homogeneity of variance failed, Welch’s ANOVA and differences between two groups were analyzed using the Games-Howell test. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS software (version 26) (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York). The threshold of significance was set at p 0.05 for all statistical tests, and graph pad prism software was used to present the graphical design (version 8) (San Diego, CA, USA). F-value (F), degrees of freedom (df) and statistical significance (p) were reported.
Is there is any concern about?
Kindly what is the best response regarding this issue
Statistics: it is not clear why the authors use Standard deviation instead of standard error of the mean for graphical representation of the results
Since the statistical analysis was conducted using appropriate methods and software, and the results were reported with relevant statistical parameters and significance levels, there does not seem to be a major concern with the statistical analysis itself. It would be helpful for you to address the concern raised by the reviewers in their response, and to provide a rationale for your choice of using standard deviation in the graphical representation of the results. Based on the nature of the data and the analysis, you could also consider providing additional analyses using standard error of the mean to show the precision of the estimated population mean, especially if the sample size is small. Ultimately, you should respond respectfully to the reviewers' comments and address any issues or concerns raised in a comprehensive manner.
1. "This paper needs more evidence to support its claims." This comment means that the paper lacks evidence to back up its claims. The best way to respond to this comment is to provide more evidence to support your claims. This could include additional research, data, analysis, or other forms of support. 2. "The structure of the paper is unclear." This comment means that the paper lacks a clear structure and organization. The best way to respond to this comment is to review the structure of the paper and make any necessary changes to ensure that it is well-organized and easy to follow. This could include adding headings, reorganizing sections, and making sure the paper has a logical flow.