Motivation: The journal is fast, and the editors are very responsible, however, the quality of reviewer's comments are low and biased. One reviewer clearly neither has a good understanding of the methodology nor carefully read the manuscript, given 1) give comments that are theoretically incorrect on the model; 2) point out a limitation that has already been properly dealt with as a major problem. In conclusion, as a top-tier journal, the experience is really disappointing.

Motivation: Although the paper presented a systemic modelling work with R-programmed Morris sensitivity analysis that could be useful for other models, the decision was "your paper is a bit too narrowly focused and hence doesn't fit within the scope of the journal".
Such a decision came after 1.5 months, which is quite long given that no further constructive comment was provided.

Motivation: The first internal review was a bit long (almost 2 months) given the output (rejection without external review). However, elements were provided in order to improve the paper quality.