[noosphr]

It's an over reaction if you have a decade to argue with morons.

I've had papers sit in peer review for two years, get rejected, then when they are finally published the other editors of the journal that rejected them came crawling in asking for the next paper in the series and promising the front page. Worse they ran a news story about our paper _in the journal that rejected it_ saying how groundbreaking it was.

The only people who think peer review still works are people who have never used it or people who have never had a novel idea in their lives.

[klustregrif]

> I've had papers sit in peer review for two years, get rejected

And for people who aren't in academia, lets just say the unspoken part: While one or more of the reviewers are actively trying to replicate the work so they can beat you to submission after rejecting you.

[riffraff]

With the rise of pre-print archives is this still a problem?

[japanuspus]

Yes - for the high profile journals (Science, Nature): Once it's public, you can forget everything about getting it accepted there.

[hallway_monitor]

As an outside observer, it does seem that the whole process is tedious, capricious, and corrupt. No wonder academia is crumbling - it deserves to, and it needs to be replaced with a new, better system.

[root_axis]

> the whole process is tedious, capricious, and corrupt

Is there any human institution under the sun that doesn't labor under a litany of such criticisms?

[riffraff]

To paraphrase the science/funerals quip, one might say "Society advances one failed institution at a time".

[bouchard]

What field are you in that you'd actually wait two years, rather than retract your submission and go somewhere else?

[aiisjustanif]

Not in academia, but aware of the process, I was wondering just the same.

[oliverx0]

I have always found this article on the matter quite revealing: https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-...