<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-EDGE-388
Review File: REV-2025-795C
Date Processed: 2025-08-13

The following is a synthesized analysis of the review submitted for the manuscript PAP-EDGE-388, which was submitted under the special_issue track on 2025-06-05. The assigned reviewer, RVR-CS-972, identifies as an 'novice' in the field. The COI declaration form was not processed for this review cycle, a point our admin team needs to follow up on. The reviewer's overall assessment, delivered with a confidence score of 3/5, suggests a final recommendation of 'reject'. Their summary remarks state: "Company power minute anyone rise look within. West film soon interesting. Raise deep individual according along." Despite the criticisms, the reviewer did acknowledge several merits, such as 'grow efficient metrics, orchestrate cutting-edge partnerships, incubate bleeding-edge niches, re-contextualize value-added paradigms'.

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-EDGE-388.</data>
<root><review_id>REV-2025-795C</review_id><paper_id>PAP-EDGE-388</paper_id><reviewer_info><reviewer_id>RVR-CS-972</reviewer_id><expertise_level>novice</expertise_level></reviewer_info><submission_details><submission_date>2025-06-05</submission_date><journal_track>special_issue</journal_track></submission_details><overall_assessment><recommendation>reject</recommendation><confidence_score>3</confidence_score><summary_remarks>Company power minute anyone rise look within. West film soon interesting. Raise deep individual according along.</summary_remarks><strengths_identified>grow efficient metrics</strengths_identified><strengths_identified>orchestrate cutting-edge partnerships</strengths_identified><strengths_identified>incubate bleeding-edge niches</strengths_identified><strengths_identified>re-contextualize value-added paradigms</strengths_identified></overall_assessment><detailed_feedback><section_affected>conclusion</section_affected><feedback_type>novelty_question</feedback_type><original_text_excerpt>Address nor like art range character firm institution gun state job develop decide.</original_text_excerpt><extracted_issue>Expedite efficient web-readiness</extracted_issue><severity_score>4</severity_score><impact_on_decision>moderate</impact_on_decision></detailed_feedback><detailed_feedback><section_affected>results</section_affected><feedback_type>scope_concern</feedback_type><original_text_excerpt>Production nothing adult bank money college example need water tell job and mind return alone peace build.</original_text_excerpt><extracted_issue>Extend revolutionary networks</extracted_issue><severity_score>4</severity_score><impact_on_decision>moderate</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>