Latest review
First review round: 8.1 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good).
Outcome: Accepted.
Motivation:
Requests by the journal were communicated actively and timely. Overall, the experience was good and the initial requests and comments made by the reviewers certainly improved the quality and accessibility of the paper. However, unfortunately, it felt as if the majority of the comments received as part of the second round rather intended to delay the publication by trying to cast doubt on the reliability of the presented approach (something that was already discussed in the first revision) than trying to improve the work.
