NATURE

How did "submitting to multiple journals" become a moral issue when it is clearly an oppressive clause imposed by the editorial department? Why is it not considered a moral issue to apply to multiple schools for admission?
The editor made a wrong decision, and so did the chief editor, but we must adhere to the original judgment, as is customary in international journals. Which of these moral issues is more serious, the one regarding the editorial department or the one regarding "submitting to multiple journals"? Should the academic community intervene in the moral issues of the editorial department?
The initial review process of the editorial department is a flawed system, and the instant rejection is based on the level of the author's affiliation.
Science is about questioning, yet some journals openly declare in their submission guidelines that they will not review challenges to widely accepted theories, citing reasons such as it being too time-consuming. What is the purpose of your journal? Can it only sing praises? ScienceNature refers such articles to specialized journals, but specialized journals and ScienceNature have a similar taste.
Truly innovative articles are not dared to be reviewed by specialized journals, from ScienceNatureCell to specialized journals. The mindset of top journals is directly inherited by specialized journals.
You can instantly reject a perpetual motion machine manuscript because you understand thermodynamics. But you are not qualified to instantly reject a manuscript questioning relativity theory based on our collective belief in relativity theory. Because you do not understand relativity theory. Rejection needs to be made by someone who understands relativity theory, in order to make the author accept it. (There was a similar debate online recently)

A few days ago, I submitted an article to Nature and wanted to see the submission process here. I found that everyone was joking around. I wanted to answer seriously and also improve my luck. I hope the review process goes smoothly.

On the day we submitted the article, an editor was assigned to us. The specific process is as follows. Then, we wait. During this time, my advisor told me that if it passed three days, it means it won't be instantly rejected. Then, after about a week, the system status was updated to "editor decision started." I searched online for a long time to find out what this meant. It seems to be a turning point, either for review or rejection. I was anxious all night, and then in the morning, I saw a message from my advisor saying it was being reviewed. I was so happy that I jumped up. As a domestic researcher, I am already thrilled to be reviewed. I hope the reviewers go easy on me. I will update the status whether it gets accepted or not. Let's all do our best!

Editor Decision Started: 7th April 23
Manuscript under consideration: 30th March 23
Editor assigned: 30th March 23
Manuscript received: 30th March 23
Manuscript under submission: 30th March 23