Short notes on Open Access, Peer review & (insane) publications
This is insane! As a long term peer reviewer I read all articles (not only under review) very carefully. From relatively wide observation the only half of the submitted papers might be accepted for further publication. Not counting in this half the articles which need some (more or less) modifications. Indeed, there are almost half of the articles which went through my hands have a very low quality. These include repeating/copying someone else's research, very poor understanding of the obtained results, not willingness, even to try to explain the obtained results, but just referring to previously published articles (from other researchers) (which means their result is not unique). Since I do not connect with the publishers other than by e-mail as a reviewer or author, I do not know how busy are Journals is to feel the issues. However, I understand that the publishers have to earn some money from what they are doing. Good it or not (very much) for the progress is a big question