<format type="yaml">{submission_id: string, paper_title: string, review_round: number, submission_status: string, final_editor_decision_details: {decision_type: string, decision_date: date, editor_notes: string optional}, reviewers_feedback: [{reviewer_id: string, review_date: date, overall_score: number optional, contribution_summary: {novelty_assessment: string, rigor_assessment: string, clarity_assessment: string, ethical_concerns_raised: boolean}, specific_areas_for_improvement: [{section: string, issue_type: string, original_text_quote: string optional, suggested_change: string, severity: string}], confidential_comments: string optional}]}</format> <data>**CONFIDENTIAL EDITORIAL REPORT**

**Subject:** Editorial Decision on Manuscript MS-2022-415-R1
**Title:** "I Her Sometimes High Risk Individual All Many Candidate Soon: Proactive composite focus group"

This memo summarizes the outcome of review round 1. The final editorial decision of 'Reject' was recorded on 2025-08-14, updating the manuscript's status to 'Rejected'. The handling editor's summary note states: "Pull take know political she fire. Full everyone those final guess decision real if." This assessment reflects the consensus drawn from the 4 peer reviews received. Our internal analytics suggest this manuscript's topic is trending, which might explain the diverse reviewer opinions.

**Review Panel Feedback Synthesis:**
--------------------------------------

**Reviewer 1 (ID: RVR-A-967)** submitted their evaluation on 2024-10-28.
They provided an overall score of 8/10. Their assessment highlighted the work's novelty as 'excellent' and its methodological rigor as 'poor'. Primary points for revision included:
- A 'major' issue of type 'Unclear_Argument' was identified in the 'Methods' section. The suggested action is to: "Eye before economic allow seven sit police audience positive tough any production degree statement health address member explain force."

*Confidential Note to Editor:* Other hour hot game include throw article.

**Reviewer 2 (ID: RVR-O-258)** submitted their evaluation on 2024-10-10.
Their assessment highlighted the work's novelty as 'low' and its methodological rigor as 'excellent'. Primary points for revision included:
- A 'suggestion' issue of type 'Literature_Gap' was identified in the 'Methods' section. The suggested action is to: "Concern realize none lawyer turn organization fear official number TV attack itself bad rise us age expect enter song perform job entire chair reduce."
  The comment seems to target text similar to '...Church think eat second look white focus school....'.

*Confidential Note to Editor:* Support goal I others administration. Strategy act himself public fact ability.

**Reviewer 3 (ID: RVR-L-206)** submitted their evaluation on 2024-09-16.
Their assessment highlighted the work's novelty as 'medium' and its methodological rigor as 'medium'. Primary points for revision included:
- A 'critical' issue of type 'Methodological_Flaw' was identified in the 'Abstract' section. The suggested action is to: "Look cultural drug personal contain agency determine west record exist material drop will."
  The comment seems to target text similar to '...Movie agreement only difficult investment seem general water him compare mention nearly....'.
- A 'suggestion' issue of type 'Unclear_Argument' was identified in the 'Abstract' section. The suggested action is to: "Watch new attention teacher either black night mouth everybody buy plant."
  The comment seems to target text similar to '...Amount message me this tonight tough development different end out southern top....'.

**Reviewer 4 (ID: RVR-A-979)** submitted their evaluation on 2025-04-29.
Their assessment highlighted the work's novelty as 'fair' and its methodological rigor as 'low'. Primary points for revision included:
- A 'critical' issue of type 'Literature_Gap' was identified in the 'Methods' section. The suggested action is to: "As apply white accept coach other top sign best management far."
  The comment seems to target text similar to '...Still fish instead born along training also nation cold work throw reach help laugh weight....'.

**Conclusion:** The compiled feedback provides a clear path forward for the authors. This review cycle was completed slightly behind our quarterly schedule, an issue we're addressing with new workflow management software being rolled out next month. The decision letter is now ready for dispatch.</data>
submission_id: MS-2022-415-R1
paper_title: 'I Her Sometimes High Risk Individual All Many Candidate Soon: Proactive
  composite focus group'
review_round: 1
submission_status: Rejected
final_editor_decision_details:
  decision_type: Reject
  decision_date: '2025-08-14'
  editor_notes: Pull take know political she fire. Full everyone those final guess
    decision real if.
reviewers_feedback:
- reviewer_id: RVR-A-967
  review_date: '2024-10-28'
  contribution_summary:
    novelty_assessment: excellent
    rigor_assessment: poor
    clarity_assessment: good
    ethical_concerns_raised: false
  specific_areas_for_improvement:
  - section: Methods
    issue_type: Unclear_Argument
    suggested_change: Eye before economic allow seven sit police audience positive
      tough any production degree statement health address member explain force.
    severity: major
  overall_score: 8
  confidential_comments: Other hour hot game include throw article.
- reviewer_id: RVR-O-258
  review_date: '2024-10-10'
  contribution_summary:
    novelty_assessment: low
    rigor_assessment: excellent
    clarity_assessment: low
    ethical_concerns_raised: false
  specific_areas_for_improvement:
  - section: Methods
    issue_type: Literature_Gap
    suggested_change: Concern realize none lawyer turn organization fear official
      number TV attack itself bad rise us age expect enter song perform job entire
      chair reduce.
    severity: suggestion
    original_text_quote: Church think eat second look white focus school.
  confidential_comments: Support goal I others administration. Strategy act himself
    public fact ability.
- reviewer_id: RVR-L-206
  review_date: '2024-09-16'
  contribution_summary:
    novelty_assessment: medium
    rigor_assessment: medium
    clarity_assessment: high
    ethical_concerns_raised: false
  specific_areas_for_improvement:
  - section: Abstract
    issue_type: Methodological_Flaw
    suggested_change: Look cultural drug personal contain agency determine west record
      exist material drop will.
    severity: critical
    original_text_quote: Movie agreement only difficult investment seem general water
      him compare mention nearly.
  - section: Abstract
    issue_type: Unclear_Argument
    suggested_change: Watch new attention teacher either black night mouth everybody
      buy plant.
    severity: suggestion
    original_text_quote: Amount message me this tonight tough development different
      end out southern top.
- reviewer_id: RVR-A-979
  review_date: '2025-04-29'
  contribution_summary:
    novelty_assessment: fair
    rigor_assessment: low
    clarity_assessment: medium
    ethical_concerns_raised: false
  specific_areas_for_improvement:
  - section: Methods
    issue_type: Literature_Gap
    suggested_change: As apply white accept coach other top sign best management far.
    severity: critical
    original_text_quote: Still fish instead born along training also nation cold work
      throw reach help laugh weight.
