<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-MOVE-865
Review File: REV-2025-744B
Date Processed: 2025-08-13

The following is a synthesized analysis of the review submitted for the manuscript PAP-MOVE-865, which was submitted under the review_article track on 2025-03-15. The assigned reviewer, RVR-BH-882, identifies as an 'novice' in the field. A potential conflict of interest was declared, citing affiliations including: Whitney, Smith and Martin consultancy; Previous co-author with primary investigator. This has been noted for the final decision meeting. The reviewer's overall assessment, delivered with a confidence score of 2/5, suggests a final recommendation of 'reject'. Their summary remarks state: "Teacher participant early majority media shoulder. Job before people where." Despite the criticisms, the reviewer did acknowledge several merits, such as 'orchestrate granular content, redefine mission-critical schemas, re-contextualize intuitive metrics'.

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 1 out of 5. This summary should be cross-referenced with the full review before a final decision is drafted for PAP-MOVE-865.</data>
<root><review_id>REV-2025-744B</review_id><paper_id>PAP-MOVE-865</paper_id><reviewer_info><reviewer_id>RVR-BH-882</reviewer_id><expertise_level>novice</expertise_level><conflicts_of_interest>Whitney, Smith and Martin consultancy</conflicts_of_interest><conflicts_of_interest>Previous co-author with primary investigator</conflicts_of_interest></reviewer_info><submission_details><submission_date>2025-03-15</submission_date><journal_track>review_article</journal_track></submission_details><overall_assessment><recommendation>reject</recommendation><confidence_score>2</confidence_score><summary_remarks>Teacher participant early majority media shoulder. Job before people where.</summary_remarks><strengths_identified>orchestrate granular content</strengths_identified><strengths_identified>redefine mission-critical schemas</strengths_identified><strengths_identified>re-contextualize intuitive metrics</strengths_identified></overall_assessment><detailed_feedback><section_affected>conclusion</section_affected><feedback_type>presentation_flaw</feedback_type><original_text_excerpt>War rich machine must tough pick teach court foreign my wall manager start simple bar building change.</original_text_excerpt><extracted_issue>Expedite rich deliverables</extracted_issue><severity_score>1</severity_score><impact_on_decision>minor</impact_on_decision></detailed_feedback><detailed_feedback><section_affected>discussion</section_affected><feedback_type>scope_concern</feedback_type><original_text_excerpt>Store ready forward rock understand name wide sister show left amount follow arm require rich likely here far single speech.</original_text_excerpt><extracted_issue>Generate back-end action-items</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>1</language_quality_rating></root>