Submitted on May 1 and received the comments on June 26. We were given a month for minor revision. Only one reviewer, the comments were pertinent and detailed. Because I was busy at the time, I didn’t resubmit until July 25. Accepted after 12 days. This speed is acceptable.

(1) Thank | ma*******17@126.com

[1] "Why most published research findings are false", PLoS Med. 2005, 2 e124(6)
[2] Nobel laureate Yoshinori Ohsumi: "90% of the viewpoints in these top journals like CNS are incorrect"
[3] Historian Li Bozhong: "Regardless of any kind of 'academic garbage', they are all harmful and public hazards (95% of scientific research papers are garbage)."

(0) Thank | English

[1] "Why most published research findings are false," PLoS Med. 2005, 2 e124(6)
[2] https://www.sohu.com/a/423577113_788170
[3] https://3g.163.com/dy/article/FEE1RTDF05419EOY.html

[4] http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08327823.2021.1952835

Article [4] provides a typical case study of the conclusions of the aforementioned three articles [1-3].
According to Article [4], the fundamental theory in the field of modern microwave materials is incorrect, which means that the tens of thousands of published papers in this field are all wrong.

(1) Thank | English

If you have genuine innovation, this publication is the first choice because it has the time and patience to review your manuscript. 
If you are an unknown person, submitting truly innovative articles to Physics Review Letters, Nature, and Science will surely result in instant rejection because these publications never allow you to challenge the foundation of their published articles. 
Science is no longer science; it has become a profession, and industry publications must uphold the interests of the beneficiaries.

(6) Thank | zhutou

junk journal, contribution threeIn the month, the reason for the rejection was that “the field of manuscript research is beyond the scope of the journal, and intentional interference is not allowed in many countries”.Grinding for more than three months, come to such a funny reason, really rubbish

(0) Thank | calcifer