Latest review
First review round: 5.9 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad).
Outcome: Drawn back.
Motivation:
The initial review was reasonably paced, with a major-revision decision about six weeks after submission. However, this first decision was issued on the basis of a single reviewer report, which we later learned did not meet the journal's own stated requirement of at least two reviewers.
We resubmitted our revised manuscript two days after the decision. What followed was a prolonged and unresolved delay. Over the next six months, the editorial office was unable to secure the required reviewers: more than ten reviewer invitations were sent, and none were accepted. During this period, the status updates we received were at times contradictory — one message indicated the manuscript was out for review with only a final report outstanding, while a later message stated that reviewers were still being sought.
To their credit, once the matter was escalated, the Lead Editor responded personally, acknowledged the irregularities, and was transparent about the difficulties. This was appreciated. Nonetheless, after more than six months without any realistic prospect of a decision, we chose to withdraw the manuscript.
Our experience suggests that authors should be aware of the possibility of significant delays in reviewer recruitment for this journal, and of limited proactive communication during those delays.
