Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Motivation: It was a long review process with multiple revise and resubmit. But it was all very professional and the final paper that was accepted was much better than the original submission, thanks to the external reviewers.
Motivation: The editors explained the delayed decision, because of the need for a third reviewer. They shortly summarized the different positions and key arguments, based on which they decided to reject the paper. They did this in a constructive way.
Motivation: I think the editors overstated the extent of revisions that would have been required from the one reviewer that suggested revisions to clarify theoretical concepts employed. Second reviewer had no revisions suggested. Given these reviews, an outright rejection rather than R&R seemed severe.