Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
6.3 weeks
9.9 weeks
n/a
7 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Many reviewers were available, with eight reviewers initially agreeing to review and seven ultimately submitting their reports. The handling editor was very prompt throughout the process. Although the review process was lengthy, the detailed reviews improved my manuscript. It was clear that the reviewers took considerable time and effort to evaluate the manuscript.
20.4 weeks
35.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
The reviewer’s comments are not few and are fairly detailed. From a technical standpoint, responding to or revising the manuscript is not very difficult. However, not all of the reviewer’s suggestions are entirely appropriate, and the author should maintain firm judgment regarding their own work, while also responding to the reviewers' questions with patience. Reviewer 2 provided a particularly thoughtful suggestion: to minimize the use of an uncommon abbreviation to refer to the study population to ensure that they feel respected and acknowledged. This comment was heartwarming. Nevertheless, the review process was quite long, and I was really anxious at that time.