I feel strongly that the conventional peer review process needs to evolve to a publish-then-filter model. That is, I do not believe that a few select individuals should decide what is worth publishing.
But to openly face others, and their criticism, requires a little bit of intelligence and backbone. These are necessary for healthy science. These qualities are even more important in a publish-then-filter model: you are exposing your unfiltered work to the world.
For their own good, I would like to exclude from science those who cannot pass an elementary test of maturity. For example: can you tell what is wrong with the following submission letter? (Hint: if you cannot, forget science, it is not for you.)
It is with pleasure that we are submitting our article for immediate publication in your journal. Unfortunately, you cannot refuse to publish our paper because:
- We have been working for three years on this paper. It is as ready as it will ever be.
- We had to fund the work of the students. Real money was spent on this paper.
- We, the authors, have unanimously agreed that this paper is ready for immediate publication. Who are you to disagree?
- We have followed the outline of the other articles in your journal. Our paper looks just like the other papers.