Latest review
Overall rating: 3 (good).
Outcome: Accepted (im.).
Motivation:
Two reviewers were selected, and both provided highly biased comments. One severely misread the manuscript, making flawed arguments forcing the citation of specific papers and the use of SD instead of SEM. The critical issue was that the handling editor rejected the paper without intervening to address these excessively biased reviewer claims. However, my request for re-review following major revisions was accepted; yet, after a month-long, thorough editorial review, the paper was ultimately rejected. While encountering "hit-or-miss" reviewers is an unavoidable reality with any journal, the peer-review process here is well-managed, and it appears to be an excellent journal.
