[larsberg]

Yes, and it also lacks something more important - the original versions of the papers that were rejected!

While I certainly have my quibbles with my peer reviewers from time to time, in every case that I've had a paper reviewed, whether reject or accept the final paper that ended up making publication was a far, far better version than the original. For all we know, the original versions of those papers were poorly-motivated, typo-filled messes, potentially even with grievous errors that were later corrected.

That's certainly been true of some papers that I've provided negative reviews for and have later seen in another form as wonderfully polished gem.