Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Motivation: Long review process. Two reviews were around a paragraph with no engagement with the actual manuscript. One reviewer was constructive and helpful, but freely admitted to not understanding the basics of the quantitative methods despite providing critiques. Editor indicated agreeing with the reviewers despite the reviewers providing contradictory statements, such as one reviewer saying there was bad engagement with the literature and the other indicating that the literature review was easy to follow and comprehensive.
Motivation: Overall, review comments were constructive, and the handling of our manuscript was excellent. However, I think it would be great if the entire review timeline could be shortened.