IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL

Second submission, and the result is tragic.
Submitted on December 17, 2021.
Rejected on January 16, 2021 (do not resubmit).
Both reviewers requested major revisions. However, the outcome was rejection, and the comments section was very brief, with just a quote from Reviewer 2: "Prepared by you manuscript is poorly written, and it isn't easy to understand the scope of the proposed work."
The feedback from the first reviewer was actually quite manageable. They suggested adding references to three specific details in the article to enhance technical credibility, as well as providing explanations and discussions on certain aspects in the simulation experiments. Lastly, there were some grammar issues. In total, there were only about 5 or 6 comments. (So, it's unclear why major revisions were requested.)
The second reviewer also requested major revisions, but compared to the first reviewer, they were slightly more demanding. However, the revisions were not too difficult. There were 10 comments, including adding discussions on time and algorithm complexity, providing explanations and discussions on certain aspects of the simulation, and some explanatory content.
Overall, I feel a bit regretful about the decision to reject it. I think with some proper revisions, it could have had a chance. (o(╥﹏╥)o) By the way, I seek advice from senior researchers, can I appeal in this situation? Is there a possibility of success?

13-Aug-2020 Initial draft submitted
16-Nov-2020 No response for three months, after reminding the dashboard manager, received feedback the next day. Both reviewers believed that the work lacked depth and innovation, and suggested major revisions before resubmission (sad).
15-Jan-2021 Made significant revisions for two months and submitted second draft.
08-Feb-2021 Contacted the manager after three weeks, received immediate response the next day with reviewer comments. Compared to the previous round, an additional reviewer provided feedback mainly on formatting issues. Accepted with two minor revisions (extremely excited!).
14-Feb-2021 Submitted third draft.
17-May-2021 No response for three months, contacted the manager multiple times and received generic responses. Finally contacted the editor-in-chief, received a response two days later. Reviewer comments suggested slight formatting modifications, accepted with one minor revision.
18-May-2021 Submitted revised manuscript.
19-May-2021 Accepted.

Overall evaluation: Personally, I believe that as long as the work has a certain theoretical depth, the reviewers are generally accepting. The editor and manager are both diligent and responsible, and their responses are relatively timely. However, the manager is more of an administrative role. If there is an urgent need for review, it is better to contact the editor-in-chief directly. Otherwise, it can delay the process.