Latest review
First review round: 21.7 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad).
Outcome: Rejected.
Motivation:
The reviewer report included multiple comments that were non-constructive, unprofessional, demonstrated heavy bias by suggesting inappropriate citations from one particular author, and suggested revisions which were contradictory across peer review rounds. It was also apparent that the reviewer did not actually read our manuscript in full, having suggested ideas which were already explored in our discussion section. The handling editor did not notice anything amiss nor offer to take a critical look at the reviewer reports until we flagged the concerning peer review comments. They committed to investigating and escalating the matter but never got back to our team. It seems authors are completely at the mercy of reviewers, with no editorial regard for reviewer feedback quality, appropriateness, or bias. I am generally very understanding to editors/journals due to the thankless nature of this work; that being said, this was among the worst peer review experiences I have encountered in the health services research field. I will not be recommending this journal to my colleagues.
