I used to have trust in the peer review process, thinking this is why it takes months or years for a paper to get published. Are you telling me it’s not real?
iwriting reviews is time consuming, unpaid, and doesn’t help the reviewers career. so it takes a while because reviewers are already busy and don’t prioritize writing reviews too much.
quality of the reviews is questionable. 10% of the reviews are through and provide valuable feedback. the remaining 90% are cursory “yeah this is interesting, publish it” or “not interesting/outside scope”.
very very few reviews find and report scientific errors
Hell, the fact that any articles have been published with the openAI “I can’t provide up-to-date info” means that shit’s not getting read properly, overall.
I used to have trust in the peer review process, thinking this is why it takes months or years for a paper to get published. Are you telling me it’s not real?
iwriting reviews is time consuming, unpaid, and doesn’t help the reviewers career. so it takes a while because reviewers are already busy and don’t prioritize writing reviews too much.
quality of the reviews is questionable. 10% of the reviews are through and provide valuable feedback. the remaining 90% are cursory “yeah this is interesting, publish it” or “not interesting/outside scope”.
very very few reviews find and report scientific errors
Hell, the fact that any articles have been published with the openAI “I can’t provide up-to-date info” means that shit’s not getting read properly, overall.
Though errors are somewhat monitored by Retraction Watch.
Sounds like you already worked it out.
Depends on what journal is reviewing the paper.