The review process for our manuscript extended over nearly a year. During this time, we contacted the editorial office on three separate occasions to inquire about the status of our submission. Approximately six months post-submission, we were informed that one external review had been completed and that the journal was still in search of a second reviewer. Eventually, nearly a year after submission, we received a decision based on an “in-house review,” stating that the manuscript “does not meet the journal’s editorial needs.” While the decision itself is certainly within the journal’s prerogative, the extended delay—particularly in the absence of full peer review—was disappointing and did not reflect the standard of professionalism we had expected.
