Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
n/a
n/a
2 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2025
Motivation:
The review process appeared subjective and, in my view, did not reflect the level of professionalism typically expected in academic peer review. I would expect greater transparency, professionalism, and consistency in the editorial process.