Latest review
First review round: 4.5 weeks. Overall rating: 2 (moderate).
Outcome: Rejected.
Motivation:
A negative reviewer's report looked biased, since he/she gave negative feedback to all questions of the review, including adequacy of the reference list, which was strange. This reviewer suggested that the presented graphics were "heavily processed" with no procedures described, which was wrong since just raw data were presented, and concluded that the manuscript does not contain transparent results. The other two reviewers gave constructive reports; however, the Editor's decision was not balanced.
