Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
4.1 weeks
4.1 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
4
Rejected
2022
7.9 weeks
7.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
2
2
Rejected
2020
Motivation: The quality of the review was shocking. Reviewer 1 had completely misunderstood the results in spite of a clear visual abstract. However, he did understand the methods. Therefore, the extent of their confusion is all the more confusing. I believe that reviewers are harried and short on time. This reflects in the quality of time they spend reviewing papers. I am dismayed by the role of editors at journals. They do not appear to do any sort of gatekeeping. Checking if a reviewers comments are even accurate. There is such limited investment on the part of editors, and since they are the only people in the process of publication who are actually being compensated it is a grim situation. For the apparent standard of the journal, the quality of review is well below average. This will catch up with the journal in a few years.