PREreview estructurada del Continuous Chlorine Monitoring with Low-Cost Technology in the Sinsicap SAP

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

It clearly explains the reason for the study and all that it entails.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Highly appropriate

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

The conclusion was drawn from the data (result). It also provided a reasonable and real interpretation. Recommendations from the data seem achievable.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

The findings were clearly stated, but could be better done in layman's style for easy understanding for those outside the field

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

For policymakers and those outside the scope of their field, sentences should be simpler for easy understanding of the findings and its implication

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, it’s of high quality

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

The discussion, importantly, method (clarify design used, and it should be consistent with the reporting) and result

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.