While I'm sure that famous scientists sometimes get critically peer reviewed, they have the option of submitting to another equally prestigious journal which will likely be less critical. I don't see any solution to this problem. I remember one professor from a university that I guess I shouldn't name, telling me that people from his department had no trouble getting published because the reviewers were mostly from his department. He was just stating a fact, not bragging.

The reverse of the proposition of the question is also true. Non-famous scientists get dismissed without thorough review. The reviewer skims looking for something that provides an excuse. It makes it sort of a challenge. One has to be very careful with wording to run this gauntlet. It's probably good training for young researchers. But an inadvertent effect is that journals do not get the new ideas that they are seeking, because new ideas can't run this gauntlet. Friends in other fields tell me similar stories. I have been on both sides, and have often struggled as a reviewer to decide what to do with a particular paper, whether it is something unorthodox I don't agree with? Do I reject it merely because I don't agree? it is too disagreeable to closely scrutinize something I really disagree with, maybe I'll just pass it to another reviewer. If I think I see a problem in work from a better known researcher, I usually will try to point it out. But it can be a lot of work to justify the critique, taking more time than it is worth, and believe me, the famous scientists know all the players and can figure out who the reviewers are. I've been told this as well. There is no such thing as an anonymous review.

If their papers are published just because of their reputation, other readers still have the opportunity to comment them, and even correct them when any mistakes are found.

So, if you noticed any flaw in a Big-Potato's paper, you can contact him/her or submit a note to the journal, I believe this is normal way of academic conversation.

No, I really dont think it...

The American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings do not claimed to be peer reviewed. They are the papers that are selected by a few session organizers as possibly of broad interest for a session at the meetings and after the meeting, the papers are selected on some 'non-formal review process' to be of topical interest for publication.

Yes, but with varying degrees of rigor. I enjoy finding problems in papers submitted by famous scientists! Remember that the reviewer is doing the author a favor by finding an error in a paper before they embarrass themselves by publishing it.

-I suppose that generally peer reviewed papers are more strict than any other one, but when it is question of huge material revenues -- and in this case it was!!! -- it might be tempting to be less severe...And it is very confortable to realize the error committed 3 years ago, so it means that no one could blame the journal or the jury,,,

@Edward I don't think that I agree with you. Look at the official site:

http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/submissions.php

where, among others, we see that:

"Submission Guidelines

Read guidelines thoroughly. Papers will not be reviewed if they do not follow our submission guidelines.

Papers should be submitted electronically to http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aer . Upon receipt of the paper, a confirmation e-mail will be sent electronically."

It clearly says "papers will not be reviewed..."

Anyway, do you agree with Olli Rehn who based the justification of austerity measures in Europe on such a paper?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22223190

It must be stated, that not all papers, which are published in peer-reviewed journals went through the usual peer-review process. The following article highlights this: "How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists", Joshua S. Gans; George B. Shepherd, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 8, No. 1. (Winter, 1994), pp. 165-179. download it: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CE8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unifr.ch%2Fwipol%2Fassets%2Ffiles%2FPhD%2520Course%2Fgans_shepherd1994.pdf&ei=c7aBUfeRO86fkgW4oYGoBw&usg=AFQjCNG5M8Jlfe8NcnoyFcX2aVKeaQNyzw&bvm=bv.45921128,d.dGI

Because of the fact, that publications determine the ranking of researchers and their institutions, where the rankings determine the budget of the institutions, and editors are also part of the game it would be rather surprising if the review process would be fair in a broad sense. In so far it is not suprising how often someone will find papers from Chicago professors in the JPE, their house journal so to say.

Actually, famous scientists are quite likely to get a hostile reception:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2138157?uid=3737760&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102201026991

While I'm sure that famous scientists sometimes get critically peer reviewed, they have the option of submitting to another equally prestigious journal which will likely be less critical. I don't see any solution to this problem. I remember one professor from a university that I guess I shouldn't name, telling me that people from his department had no trouble getting published because the reviewers were mostly from his department. He was just stating a fact, not bragging.

The reverse of the proposition of the question is also true. Non-famous scientists get dismissed without thorough review. The reviewer skims looking for something that provides an excuse. It makes it sort of a challenge. One has to be very careful with wording to run this gauntlet. It's probably good training for young researchers. But an inadvertent effect is that journals do not get the new ideas that they are seeking, because new ideas can't run this gauntlet. Friends in other fields tell me similar stories. I have been on both sides, and have often struggled as a reviewer to decide what to do with a particular paper, whether it is something unorthodox I don't agree with? Do I reject it merely because I don't agree? it is too disagreeable to closely scrutinize something I really disagree with, maybe I'll just pass it to another reviewer. If I think I see a problem in work from a better known researcher, I usually will try to point it out. But it can be a lot of work to justify the critique, taking more time than it is worth, and believe me, the famous scientists know all the players and can figure out who the reviewers are. I've been told this as well. There is no such thing as an anonymous review.

I present you a quote from a desk rejection:

" ...We regret that we cannot consider it, in part because at present

we have a large backlog of excellent articles awaiting publication. ..."

If I were 'someone', then probably no journal could decide in such a way concerning my submitted article, I think...

Hi Balázs, in many cases you are right. Though it can be a great burden on a reviewer to sort through some dense math and even follow it. In one of my own papers, I found it took about 4 hours to get through only half of it with a very bright physics professor one on one who was very interested. And my math was not even all that complicated I didn't think. I'm pretty sure the reviewers of my paper didn't go through it. And some earlier journals who turned it down didn't go through it either. They took the short cuts you mention.

However, in the field of fault and radiation tolerant circuits, the question is often not just a matter of math models, as you may possibly find in your field as well. I remember an argument with one professor over a fault tolerant phase locked loop. He simply thought current starved inverters did not oscillate reliably close enough in period for a voting system to work. I had a working example. He alleged that if I implemented my design on many other processes I would find some of them would give trouble. I alleged I would find and solve such problems if and when they came up? Was he right to reject my paper? He did. Even though this discussion was not a formal review, he is the one who told me all the reviewers were at his university and they all discussed among themselves which papers to accept.

I am not even saying he was entirely wrong. As a result I have designed an all digital PLL (which he will not like either, same complaint), which is much easier to make fault tolerant. I will be coming back with data on two fabrications in different processes. Will he change his mind? I doubt it. I'm hoping he is not watching and I slip through one of his colleagues who does not know about the prejudice.

@Demetris, I think that reply is quite common. I have a few of them. You just have to try different journals. Even among the most prestigious ones, there are big differences. Even some that will not readily accept a paper from a newcomer will tell you some things you can do to fix the paper and you can submit it elsewhere. But the first type is useless. I've also had bad luck with the ones that charge for reviews, usually about $250. It is just a scam. Takes someone 15 minutes to make $250 if they reject a complicated paper. But it would take them at least 3 or 4 hours maybe longer to work through and verify the math as Balázs wants, maybe weeks!

@Robert, I fully agree with you. I have also rejections with many suggestions that really helped me, so we cannot put all journals at the same box. Of course I do not recomend anyone to pay for a review ... it is a joke I think...