[pacbard]

Maybe a better descriptor would be that peer review is a reputation-based system.

The peers that will review your work likely know about the paper you submitted already, because they work on related work themselves and sat through your conference presentations. Most of them want you to publish your work and will provide a good/non-adversarial review of a paper.

Sometimes though, your paper hits too close to home for them, then they will try not to get it published or will slow walk the review so that their own work can come out before yours or at the same time.

On top of that, you have journal editors who can see everything about the process and can decide to ignore a good/bad review to fit their ideas about the paper itself and to fit the overall vision they have for the journal for the coming publication schedule.

[concordDance]

> Sometimes though, your paper hits too close to home for them, then they will try not to get it published or will slow walk the review so that their own work can come out before yours or at the same time.

How often does this actually happen? Can't say I've heard of people doing this.

[tovej]

I have heard from colleagues that this has happened to them.