JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS

The initial review process of the editorial department is a bad system, and the immediate rejection is based on the level of the author's affiliation.
How did the submission of one article to two journals become a moral issue? It is clearly an overbearing clause of the editorial department. Why is it not a moral issue to apply to multiple schools for admission?
If the editor makes a wrong decision, if the chief editor makes a wrong decision, they must adhere to the original judgment, which is a common practice in international journals. Which of these moral issues is more serious: the moral issue of the editorial department, or the issue of one article being submitted to two journals? Should the academic community address the moral issues of the editorial department?
For a perpetual motion machine manuscript, you can immediately reject it because you understand thermodynamics. But for a manuscript questioning relativity, you are not qualified to immediately reject it based on everyone's belief in relativity. Because you don't understand relativity. Rejection needs to be made by someone who understands relativity, and you have to make the author convinced. (There was a similar debate online recently)
Science is about questioning. Some journals openly declare in their guidelines that they will not review articles that question commonly accepted things, claiming that it is too time-consuming. What is your journal for? Can it only sing praises? ScienceNature passes it on to specialized journals, but specialized journals have the same mindset as ScienceNature.
Truly innovative articles are not dared to be reviewed by ScienceNatureCell or specialized journals. The thinking of top journals is directly inherited by specialized journals.

• Submission Date: November 15, 2022
• Acceptance Date: February 5, 2023
• Online Publication Date: February 27, 2023

Sent to reviewers on November 21.

Received a revision letter on December 21, with 20 questions from two reviewers, which were not very critical (later found out there were three reviewers, but the editor only provided feedback from the first two).

Requested to submit revised manuscript by January 14.

Agreed to accept the paper on January 20 (but initially chose an Open Access option and later decided to withdraw, which took some time for communication).

Sent the proof on February 6.

Publication scheduled for February 27 (however, there was no communication during this time, and I was anxiously waiting until suddenly an issue date appeared on the submission panel).