Latest review
First review round: 11.4 weeks. Overall rating: 0 (very bad).
Outcome: Rejected.
Motivation:
The first rejection was based on only a single reviewer, who appeared to have not even read the manuscript thoroughly. He/she repeatedly crticised an experimental method that was not even used in this work. He/she was also majorly criticizing the exact approach of the uncertainty reporting (like, that it should be specified to be standard or expanded uncertainty, and that e.g. for a table where and how it should be etc.). These aspects are however more template-based aspects, and thus shoudl not be basis for rejecting an article carrying a content of scientific value.
When I confronted the editor, he agreed that it shouldn't be a rejection, and said it was by a mistake, and then revoked that rejection.
Then, a second reviewer was added later on (17th Dec 2016) who has very good feedback, and I received a suggestion for major revision.
Then, when all the relevant changes were done accordingly, a second revision was submissted. This was however, surprisingly treated as a brand new submission. There, although the second reviewer seemed very content with the changes, again based-on the 1st reviewer's brand-new criticism on the article (who did not still seem to read the article sufficiently), the article was rejected, even without acknowledging all the changes done so far.
