IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters

2021.5.10 Initial submission
6.2 Reject & Resubmit The editor-in-chief, associate editor, and two reviewers have replied to me, stating that the paper is highly innovative but has several formatting issues, and they suggest resubmission. Since I have also reviewed papers for AWPL, there is no major revision option, so this is essentially a major revision.
7.22 Resubmitted
8.13 Minor revision
9.2 Submitted minor revision
2021.9.27 Received congratulations from the editor-in-chief, paper accepted.
Innovation is crucial, pure engineering implementation will be rejected. In my paper, I combined a common unresolved problem with theoretical analysis, modeled the problem, and derived equations for solution, providing a range of parameters. I visualized the problem through equation plotting and inferred its root cause, validated it through theory and practice. Finally, I proposed a solution and conducted comparative analysis of different methods, validating the rationality of the chosen method through results. In fact, during simulation and sample testing, I did not consider these aspects as much. It was mainly during the process of writing the paper that I condensed the problem. Therefore, it is not enough to merely conduct experiments; extraction and sublimation are also necessary to uncover innovation.
The previous article had excellent sample test data, with good volume and performance, but lacked innovation and was rejected by AWPL.
The review process for AWPL generally takes around 22 days. Upon receiving the editor's reply, it is advisable to complete and submit the revisions promptly, without delay. I also reflect on this matter. Address the reviewers' comments one by one, without evasion, and be objective.

SUBMITTED 16-May-2023
Reject (05-Jul-2023)
The review process took 50 days, which is much slower compared to other letters.
The reviewer's comments were not very professional. Based on the comments, it seems like the reviewer did not thoroughly read the content and only briefly looked at the figures and some grammar. The issues mentioned by the reviewer were already addressed in the text. It appears that the reviewer was busy nearing the end of the term and just wanted to quickly finish the review. The reviewer seems unfamiliar with the practical implementation of antenna engineering. The innovation and comparisons were mentioned multiple times in the article, but the reviewer ignored them.