I've submitted a short paper to a well-known cs journal. It got rejected after two years with the below one para explanation. While I admit that the submission was not strong, I feel cheated because of waiting for two years for this explanation (no full report was made).
In the paper, the author shows that NP-completeness for [...]. The proofs are very basic and standard. The results are reasonable, so it may be acceptable if this paper was written in 1990s. However, as far as I know, such a kind of paper is obsolete nowadays. Since 2000s, among such papers, few papers are acceptable for [...] only when there are some extra value to be published. For example, they solve big open question, or the NP-completeness has very important influence to the other research. From this viewpoint, this paper is not strong enough for the recent [...]. So my recommendation is reject.
What shall I do? I think this situation is unacceptable, let me know if you disagree.
I've already complained of course to the editor upon receipt of the report, but I got no answer.
ps. Btw, imo the given journal still publishes NP-completeness proofs regularly, that's why I've chosen it for my result.