Structured PREreview of Functional and Nutritional Quality of Eggplant Cultivars Under Grafted and Fertilization

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

Yes

The preprint clearly explains the objective of the research. However, there is a notable discrepancy. The stated objective mentions only fertilization regime and agricultural system as factors being assessed. It does not mention grafting, even though grafting is one of the three main experimental factors and a major focus of the results, discussion, and conclusions.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

We think the methods are appropriate and well described for the stated objective, but there are some issues that limit reproducibility. They include the following: - The manuscript does not describe grafting techniques (cleft, tube...), graft success, grafting timing, healing, or rootstock-scion compatibility. This is very important for reproducibility. - The use of AMF without a baseline soil analysis is a major gap. The soil analysis is essential to establish the baseline conditions that determine whether AMF inoculation is likely to succeed. - In terms of assessing fruit quality, shelf life is a critical parameter that should be measured. However, this is not very important as the title of the manuscript is clear on phytochemicals at harvest.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

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

Highly appropriate and clear

The authors have collected a rich dataset but not well presented. There is the need to revisit figure 1, as it's difficult to have access to the data. We suggest a color differentiation between cultivars, grafting treatment... All bars appear with the same color. There must be a reason the authors have presented the same data already present in tables 1-6.

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

Very clearly

The discussion section is well structured and readable. But there is a need to add a complete limitations (yield, soil analysis...) section.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Somewhat likely

Based on our analysis of the manuscript, our assessment is that this preprint is likely to substantially advance academic knowledge in its current form. But there is a need for improvement. While it addresses a relevant topic, its contribution is limited by significant methodological gaps.

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

The preprint would benefit significantly from language editing. The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors, duplicated sentences, spelling errors, etc.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

The authors can add the well-documented grafting effects on quality. Also, fertilization effects on quality are also well-studied. We also recommend that the authors add a paragraph outlining the study's limitations and suggesting future research.

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

Yes, after minor changes

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

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