Latest review
First review round: 60.8 weeks. Overall rating: 1 (bad).
Outcome: Rejected.
Motivation:
An absolute waste of time. A very long process that led to nothing but my proposed approach becoming obsolete. One of the reviewers asked to compare my proposed method with a Deep Learning approach, whereas not only that target approach was irrelevant but also I could not have access to the required hardware. Indeed I clarified that one major advantage of the proposed method was its computational simplicity and tested it against some of the state-of-the-art relevant methods. It took the associate editor 10 month to only be able to have one review from one reviewer that asked for additional comparison. But based on that single review my manuscript was rejected. Poor experience.
