I was trying to guess that 2004 was the most proximate archive year of their papers prior to when yours was rejected, hence that list: https://eprint.iacr.org/2

I was trying to guess that 2004 was the most proximate archive year of their papers prior to when yours was rejected, hence that list: https://eprint.iacr.org/2004 https://eprint.iacr.org/2004 Are you saying any of these papers make a significant argument about side channel attacks? Or of you saying there are eight papers that make some reference to it? If it’s the latter that’s quite a big difference and it’s easy to see the logic of rejecting your paper based on its central theme. I didn’t notice any of the papers made a significant argument about side channel attacks. Maybe 2004 was not the most proximate year prior to take as sample data? Or maybe I’m just overlooking the eight your referring to? Btw I wouldn’t begrudge you any wtf thinking if you had any. It would definitely suck to do good work and not get proper and timely recognition for it, especially when it could have sped a solution or helped mitigate a real life problem. It’s just that to whatever degree this suckness happened, I can’t see how it was due to irrational or biased reasoning on the part of the Cryptology ePrint archive.