Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
11.3 weeks
11.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2023
n/a
n/a
9 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2022
11.1 weeks
20.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2020
Motivation:
Altogether, the handling of the manuscript has been rapid and efficient. One of the two reviewers screened the manuscript in very best practice, evaluated chapter by chapter even for complex mathematical content, gave inspired positive feedback and provided helpful comments with regard to the existing content. The second reviewer obviously did not deal with the scientific methods and results of the manuscript in detail (if at all). Finding his own opinion contradicted in the results and discussion chapter, this reviewer requested explanation for questions which were out-of-scope of the manuscript. After three months of additional intensive research we provided detailed explanations in a substantially enlarged revision. The editorial board rejected our revised submission, arguing that one referee had recommended against publication. The first referee did not have any further objections. The reasons given by the second referee were demonstrably counterfactual and completely unrelated to the explanations and changes requested in the first review. It is questionable whether the editors had carefully judged the referees' work, as they had weighted the superficial review higher than the accurate one.