Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
2.0 weeks
4.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
4
4
Accepted
2018
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
3 reports
4
4
Rejected
2016
2.0 weeks
2.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
0
0
Rejected
2018
Motivation: Reviews were of extremely poor quality,
first reviewer had 5 comments;
the first comment was attacking the very first sentence of the introduction, a question a first year bachelor student would have found ridiculous.
2 were actually already addressed in the manuscript (for example comment about uploading data for repreducibility, which we had, and clearly mentioned in the data availability section)
2 were easily covered (minor details to explain further

the second reviewers comments were restricted to 1; do you have any additional information about the public data you used (which we obviously could have looked up and incorporated in the manuscript)

all in all, bad reviews, and simply not enough grounds for the editor to reject the paper on; the least he could have done is send it out to a 3rd reviewer, hoping for a decent assessment of our work