夏柚子 2023-01-29

The editing efficiency is extremely low, and there is an embarrassing situation of not recording and not returning. As for cryptography, the review comments are very unprofessional. I have already tested the relevant randomness, but the reviewers claim that the testing is not convincing enough and demand theoretical proof, using this as a reason for rejection. This is very unprofessional and unreasonable.

怀念从前 2023-01-23

The editing process efficiency is extremely low, not recording, and also stuck in an embarrassing situation without withdrawing.

EulerGauss 2022-06-14

The self-citation rate is too high, at 23%. You should know that the journal Adv. Differ. Math. has a self-citation rate of 20.6%, which is why it was included in the warning list. Moreover, it is a top journal in Zone 1 and Zone 2, showing how unreliable and unscientific the journal ranking system is. Ranking is based on impact factor, which is determined by citations. However, if a journal has a high self-citation rate, it is not reliable to say that the journal's ranking is high.