Much has been written about the peer review process and its flaws. Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal has stated that since peer-review doesn’t work, we shouldn’t do it
I have recently come across another example of the flaws in peer review. I reviewed a manuscript last year and identified what I believed to be technical problems and suggested at least major revision. The other two reviewers agreed; the three of us had homed in independently on the same technical issues.
Move forward a year and the paper is published in another (equally “prestigious”) journal, no changes.
In addition to only reviewing for open access journals, I will from now on only review for journals where the review is open and published or where I am free to publish the review. That, at least, will avoid the ethical tension between participating in anonymous peer-review and then wanting to publish the critique when nothing has changed in the paper.
Why Groundhog day? This is not the first time I have had this experience.