Latest review
First review round: 13.1 weeks. Overall rating: 5 (excellent).
Outcome: Rejected.
Motivation:
Smooth submission process. The decision was returned
within a reasonable timeframe, and the rejection notice
included substantive reviewer reports that engaged
directly with the manuscript.
Both reviewers had clearly read the work in full. The
first reviewer identified the main contribution areas
and raised targeted questions about novelty positioning,
runtime trade-offs, and the integration of the proposed
components. The second reviewer provided unusually deep
domain engagement, including detailed methodological
critique grounded in the simulation tool used and
specific page-level comments running through the entire
manuscript.
Although the outcome was rejection, the review reports
identified a fundamental conceptual issue that
ultimately reshaped the direction of the authors'
subsequent work. For authors submitting in
building-related simulation or modeling areas, this
journal appears to provide genuinely substantive peer
review, which is increasingly rare. The reviewer pool
seems to include domain experts capable of engaging
with technical detail rather than producing generic
templates. Recommended for authors who value
constructive review even at the cost of acceptance
probability.
