First review round: 30.6 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad).
The manuscript was handled in an unprofessional, biased way from the part of the Editorial board. There were 2 reviews, the first explicitly recommending publication and praising the quality of the work, the second being very critique but without explicitly suggesting rejection in the comments. Without going into the details, the fact is that the major critique of the 2nd reviewer was a falsified claim of not comparing against recent methods, while the submitted article indeed contained a comparison against the #1 performing method in the domain, published in just the previous year. It was probably due to neglect from the reviewer that did not actually read through the article and the final responsibility of the editorial boards that just did not care.