Latest review
First review round: 14.0 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad).
Outcome: Rejected.
Motivation:
The second reading consisted of two unfair, arbitrary, and sloppy readers of the revised version. Both of them were part of the original reviewers. Comments were inconsistent, inaccurate, irrelevant, raised new issues, suggested completely new lines of inquiry, and made-up observations thereby nullifying their comments made in the first round. Did not familiar with the relevant literature. Total lack of acknowledgement of all the revisions that were assiduously made based solely on the recommendations of the first three reviewers and the editor. The evidence points to a perfunctory reading of the revised manuscript, nasty nitpicking bordering on callousness, while the editorial office did little to check the integrity of the refereeing process.
