I was gonna make this into a LinkedIn post, but I think it'll do better here, especially since this is my blog.
As I scanned through my email boxes to clear out space I noticed my set of emails from when I worked in a lab during my first master's, the emails were a conversation between myself and several scientific journals when I was trying to publish my first paper. One journal said it was too biological, another said it was too engineering-based, another journal said it was too biophysical, and a fourth journal said it was too bio and optics based. The paper covered the circadian rhythm, creations of technology related to circadian entrainment, and a proposition of a new piece of tech, one also with the goal to entrain the eyes, thereby the circadian system, to make people feel more sleepy. I noticed that one journal had only two reviewers, the chief editor and someone handpicked by them, and the handpicked individual said "melanopsin is not a photoreceptor".... melanopsin is a photoreceptor expressed by GPCRs, and preferential responds to blue light at 480nm and wavelengths of light of similar lengths close to that number, but 480 is best to get them to respond.
I say this because, please, keep in mind that even the educated people that you may speak to are utterly nonsensical, they have no mensa, there's nothing, not even emptiness inside their heads. Furthermore, the chief editor stated that it was unfair for me to reference a paper they allowed to be published in their journal from 2009, claiming that "things change in science so it isn't fair to make comparisons"; trust me, I'm perhaps the only person who has an astounding understanding that things change, especially in science.
Regardless, clear out your emails, and don't be those ppl who have 10,000+ unread emails; this isn't the AIM away message system of '98 no more, ain't nobody's but your jobs sending you phishing emails with coupons for uber eats.