Security and Communication Networks

The first review opinion is completely different! It could be either a change of reviewer for the second review (although the possibility is very low), or it could be the opinion of the academic editor (AE) themselves. This academic editor is very irresponsible. I openly boycott this academic editor named Li Wenjuan. How can the second review say that my paper lacks innovation? The "similar" papers provided are completely different from mine! Some of the papers provided by the editor are reviews, some are about defense methods, while my paper is about a new attack method. In terms of direction, they are completely different. Moreover, the first paper not only has a different direction from mine, but it was also published in December 2021, while I submitted mine in November. This clearly reflects the innovation! If the lack of innovation was an issue, it should have been raised during the first review, but the first reviewer didn't mention it at all! It shows that the editor didn't take the reviewer's opinion seriously at all. The person who contacted me via email during the revision process (probably also an editor, but not the academic editor) was very responsible. They replied to me promptly regarding any issues with uploading. However, the academic editor (Li Wenjuan) is extremely irresponsible! Everyone should be cautious if they are assigned this AE (academic editor) when submitting their papers!

The first review took over a month and resulted in major revisions. After the resubmission, the second review pointed out English grammar issues, and the editor requested further revisions the next day, asking for a more careful improvement in English grammar. I spent time improving the grammar and submitted it again. In less than a week, the reviewer said the modifications were good and requested minor revisions. After another round of revisions, it was accepted. The whole process took over three months, which was relatively fast for the special issue I submitted to. The editor I encountered was a Chinese person who gave valuable suggestions in the early stage and had a good attitude. I felt that they were sensitive to English grammar, and the article also needed to highlight the theme of the journal I submitted to. Overall, the speed and the editor were good.