Reviews for "Corrosion Science"

Motivation: The Editor seemed to have taken a very cautious stance against this manuscript. The Manuscript was sent initially to two reviewers, and the first round was relatively quick. However, the second reviewer came up with a long list of comments (about 8 "major" and 60 "minor"). We have then revised the manuscript substantially and have done a lot of work on it and submitted it back to the journal, hoping that all issues had been addressed. The second round of reviews took much longer, and the same Reviewer, again, submitted an even longer list of comments (about 100 - 110 points), and it was a real nightmare. All of those comments were written in an exceptionally poor English, and it took a lot of time just to understand what he was writing. The response to the Reviewer comments has taken 16 pages. Most of those comments were useless, and it seemed the Reviewer just didn't want this paper to be published! After having communicated with the Editor, the latter confirmed that the Reviewer needed to be changed, and then the Editor reviewed the re-revised manuscript himself. It took four rounds of review to get this paper published.

Motivation: The matter of discontent is that the editor, surely, is in his right to to consider the paper to be out of the scope of his journal, but to take more than 4 months to arrive at this conclusion is toooooooo much