I could not resist but comment at the end ... (sorry for cleaning up the thread text)
I agree with Roberto that the system is actually not that bad when you think of it. Or, it could be much worse. In my experience, the editors of many journals - professional or academic - try very hard, and most referees make an honest effort and are objective. Of course there are glitches to that system - but, in my experience no matter how annoying they are (and oh yes I have been very annoyed), they are relatively few. Should things change in the peer review process? Surely yes. And things are changing!!! For example: - eLife now gets the referees to talk to each other and get a consensus report - so one referee cannot say unreasonable things in one review - EMBO press has many innovations awaiting http://www.embo.org/scientific-publications/transparent-process These said I would had liked to see similar policies implemented to the brand new IUCrJ and other IUCr journals, and I would have preferred it if the co-editor name in the IUCr journals would stay unknown (possibly revealed only at publication time, but not before a decision is made). Best - Tassos
