Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.5 weeks
4.5 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Rejected
2026
Motivation:
A negative reviewer's report looked biased, since he/she gave negative feedback to all questions of the review, including adequacy of the reference list, which was strange. This reviewer suggested that the presented graphics were "heavily processed" with no procedures described, which was wrong since just raw data were presented, and concluded that the manuscript does not contain transparent results. The other two reviewers gave constructive reports; however, the Editor's decision was not balanced.
5.3 weeks
5.7 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2025
Motivation:
The peer reviewing process was very helpful in improving the manuscript quality, and appropriate technical suggestions were made.