peer review
The scientific quality of the document is much better than in V1. Nevertheless, the authors could improve the conclusion, which seems to contain elements for discussion, with references cited. Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the conclusion
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.32388/dlqpzr
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.