Latest review
First review round: 4.6 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad).
Outcome: Rejected.
Motivation:
The handling editor and journal staff were responsive
throughout the submission process, and turnaround time was
reasonable.
The review reports, however, varied considerably in depth.
One report was lengthy but largely descriptive, summarizing
content from the manuscript without engaging substantively
with the methodology or contribution. The other was brief
and offered little reviewable feedback. Neither suggested
revision directions or identified specific weaknesses that
could guide a meaningful response.
Given the journal's selective acceptance policy, the weight
placed on each individual report appears to be high. Authors
submitting technically detailed work may want to consider
whether the available reviewer pool matches the nature of
their submission.
