Latest review
First review round: 39.1 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad).
Outcome: Rejected.
Motivation:
Very unimpressed by the fact that obvious factual errors were missed by 3 different people in the review process. The reviewer selection process leads to random referees, very unfamiliar with the basics of your manuscript. The report consisted of a few valid points that could be easily addressed, but some major criticisms by both reviewers were factually incorrect. For instance, the major criticism was that "you do not generally know the quantity that this method requires as input, therefore the method is useless." In fact, we do know that quantity, always, and the proof was too obvious to include originally. Apparently it was not obvious to the reviewers. The editor rejected the paper on these factually incorrect premises. Since the reviewers took 9 months to provide a low quality report, we did not bother to provide the proof. We included it and submitted in much better journals, of higher impact factor, and got much better quality reports.
