[enviclash]

We all get papers rejected. Nobel prizes get also papers rejected. And rejection is one of the very few tools we have to stop the crap from flowing in. This is not to say that all rejected papers are crap. Sorry to hear about your bad time with rejections, this is a universal thing.

[godelski]

I don't think this response really is getting to what I'm complaining about. Rejects suck, but often they are deserving. I'm not saying that we need to throw out the peer review system. I even specifically said I don't think we need to accept more papers. But I do think we need a mechanism to ensure that reviews are good and high quality. Especially the reject ones. If your paper is being rejected without feedback that can convey what needs to be fixed to become a good paper, then this wasn't a peer review.

I've had plenty of good reviews and plenty of bad reviews. A reject doesn't sting nearly as much when I think "maybe they have a point." But if a reviewer tells me to compare to something I'm already comparing to and is in many graphs and tables, I'm entirely unconvinced that they even read the paper and I think we can all agree that that type of reviewer is not benefiting anyone. They are the system failing.

You may disagree with the number of bad reviewers there are (and that's okay) but I highly doubt you would actually defend them. I'm just saying we need a system where we either encourage these people to change the _quality_ of their reviews or stop reviewing (I am _not_ arguing that we need to change their scores).

[enviclash]

"I do think we need a mechanism to ensure that reviews are good and high quality. Especially the reject ones." This is a very important point, IMHO more for proposals than for articles. The latter deserving less time because time is at a premium, although I am aware that this is a most painful truth!