Latest review
First review round: 11.3 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good).
Outcome: Accepted.
Motivation:
The manuscript was handled through a structured and constructive peer-review process. The reviewers provided detailed and relevant comments, particularly regarding methodology, organization, and clarity, which contributed substantially to improving the manuscript. The editorial communication was generally clear, and the revision opportunity was appropriate. Although the process required substantial revisions, the feedback was useful and ultimately strengthened the scientific and editorial quality of the article. Overall, I consider the journal's review process rigorous, constructive, and professionally managed.
