Davide

That was sarcastic... I cant believe you didn't get it. Is really hard to discuss with people having IQ really close to idiocy

more than 9000 posts! Do you work sometime? The alternative is easy. NOT BLIND REVIEW! But it looks nobody wants it. Wonder why ahahahahaha

Reading your post I understand that nothing will ever change in this field. Can you imagine if FIAT-Chrysler, before building a new car, must send the project to Renault to be approved? Do you think Renault will say: wow, nice car! go on. I am very surprise to see how scientist are naive about scientific publication or, I am the naive one and most of the scientist are ok with that. If I make a favor to you then you'll make a favor to me. It's all a matter of connection. Going to conference, knowing the right people, that's science!

think of R as a clock hand. When R gets to 12 o'clock s = r - R, when R gets to 6 o'clock s r + R

In my opinion is little different. Your "qualified" means to me finding people who are expert in your area of research. This means your direct competitors and, unfortunately, more than you think do not perform a fair review. If we do not want reviewers to be paid directly by the journals, than there should be an independent panel of reviewers, (not blind) independently paid (by nations worldwide? a little by each scientific journal? other ideas?) who do that as a job. In this way we can fix precise deadlines (one month for the decision?) and a fair review process. Otherwise, as it is now, the scientific value of a paper is at risk and we might have rejected papers who, in the future, will win the Nobel prize

Exactly! the whole review system is wrong. Scientific journals should have their own reviewers instead of relying on strangers which often have conflict of interests or are just to busy writing stupid comments on whatever forum they find in the internet.... So, for example, a reviewer might delay a decision because he/her is trying to publish a similar work or just reject your work because you forgot to say hello to them to the last conference. I think this is so prehistoric. Is it only me thinking that the whole scientific publication world must be completely renewed? By the way. I resubmitted the paper and after 10 days it was accepted without a single modification. This make me think even more that the first review was delayed (and rejected) on purpose.

If you cant review fast, then don't review. We don't need arrogant people like you. We need good, honest and responsible reviewers. From your words I can understand that you are none of them. Your words means that you have no idea of what a researchers work is. It looks like you are one of this arrogant (which most of the tiime is goes with ignorant) person that sit all the time at his desk thinking that he's the greatest in the world. If you cannot understand that reviewing other peoples work MUST BE a priority, then don't do it. Please make a favor to all of us and DON'T REVIEW!!!

When I get a paper to review I usually do it in less than a week because I know that the scientist behind that paper need an answer as soon as possible. The months long review are the time needed when internet was not available and papers were actually sent by airmail. I think in the internet era is a nonsense. I know is now impossible to do but I would love to see a paper published right away on the internet and then have scientists reading it and making their comments (like a comment to a post). These reviewers will then put a rate that will tell the other scientists how good it is. In this case the reviewers' process will not be blind (which I think is a shame) and the editors' work will be to overview the various comment. Personally I think the scientific publication how it is now is a shame. You cant have blind reviewers that can delay your work (so they can publish their own) or in the worst case they can copy your work and you have no idea of who read your paper! It takes time (4 months) to read 15 pages and make a comment?!?! I think to have strangers reading your work and decide whether is worth publishing or not is a shame. If you want to have a scientific journal then you need personal reviewers working only for that journals which can make (not blind) reviews. Giving papers away to blind reviewers which are obviously your competitor I think is prehistoric

Yesterday I received the reviewers comments from an editor of "Journal of clinical biochemistry". The paper was rejected but what upset me most was the fact that it took almost four months to reach this decision and one of the reviewer wrote a total of 4 lines (!!!!!) and this could have been done in one day. I can accept that a paper might not be good enough for a journal, what I can't accept is that it takes 4 months to do that. The scientific work is based on publications that are needed to raise funds and for career advancement. I think it is unbearable that we are hostages of editors of scientific journals who can decide if, and when a paper can be published or rejected. Often the reviewers are not good enough to judge a paper (in the best case), other times they delay the answers because they are writing similar papers or (the worst case) the delay and "take inspiration" from your work. We are now in 2020 and I think this type of procedure for scientific publication is absolutely prehistoric. In the internet era the name of the reviewers should be available and the revision process could involve even tens of reviewers in a more transparent way.