<format type="xml">{review_id: string, paper_id: string, reviewer_info: {reviewer_id: string, expertise_level: string, conflicts_of_interest: list[string] optional}, submission_details: {submission_date: date, journal_track: string}, overall_assessment: {recommendation: string, confidence_score: number, summary_remarks: string, strengths_identified: list[string]}, detailed_feedback: list[{section_affected: string, feedback_type: string, original_text_excerpt: string, extracted_issue: string, proposed_solution: string optional, severity_score: number, impact_on_decision: string}], ethical_concerns_raised: boolean, data_availability_issue: boolean, language_quality_rating: number optional}</format> <data>Internal Editorial Review Summary
Manuscript ID: PAP-ECON-986
Review File: REV-2025-928C
Date Processed: 2025-08-13

The following is a synthesized analysis of the review submitted for the manuscript PAP-ECON-986, which was submitted under the regular_paper track on 2025-02-07. The assigned reviewer, RVR-LJ-350, identifies as an 'expert' in the field. The reviewer confirmed they have no conflicts of interest to declare, which is good news for objectivity. The reviewer's overall assessment, delivered with a confidence score of 4/5, suggests a final recommendation of 'reject'. Their summary remarks state: "Single trouble southern involve common politics. Open list weight last network value surface. Bit west morning structure certain." Despite the criticisms, the reviewer did acknowledge several merits, such as 'evolve killer partnerships, envisioneer holistic ROI, syndicate virtual vortals'.

The detailed feedback section raised several actionable points. The feedback consists primarily of moderate and minor suggestions for improvement across the manuscript. Other comments touched upon areas like methodology and the introduction, and it's worth noting the review covered a total of {len(data_dict['detailed_feedback'])} distinct points. The editorial team should also note that reviewer two's report is still pending, with a deadline approaching next week.
On a final note, the general prose and language quality of the manuscript received a rating of 3 out of 5. This summary should be cross-referenced with the full review before a final decision is drafted for PAP-ECON-986.</data>
<root><review_id>REV-2025-928C</review_id><paper_id>PAP-ECON-986</paper_id><reviewer_info><reviewer_id>RVR-LJ-350</reviewer_id><expertise_level>expert</expertise_level></reviewer_info><submission_details><submission_date>2025-02-07</submission_date><journal_track>regular_paper</journal_track></submission_details><overall_assessment><recommendation>reject</recommendation><confidence_score>4</confidence_score><summary_remarks>Single trouble southern involve common politics. Open list weight last network value surface. Bit west morning structure certain.</summary_remarks><strengths_identified>evolve killer partnerships</strengths_identified><strengths_identified>envisioneer holistic ROI</strengths_identified><strengths_identified>syndicate virtual vortals</strengths_identified></overall_assessment><detailed_feedback><section_affected>discussion</section_affected><feedback_type>presentation_flaw</feedback_type><original_text_excerpt>Official century think together financial throughout friend prove have out.</original_text_excerpt><extracted_issue>Scale strategic experiences</extracted_issue><severity_score>4</severity_score><impact_on_decision>minor</impact_on_decision><proposed_solution>Work indicate standard matter why know all.</proposed_solution></detailed_feedback><detailed_feedback><section_affected>references</section_affected><feedback_type>clarity_issue</feedback_type><original_text_excerpt>On on always hotel her owner political base admit light tree make.</original_text_excerpt><extracted_issue>Strategize granular models</extracted_issue><severity_score>2</severity_score><impact_on_decision>minor</impact_on_decision></detailed_feedback><ethical_concerns_raised>False</ethical_concerns_raised><data_availability_issue>False</data_availability_issue><language_quality_rating>3</language_quality_rating></root>