@Boris: I have heard this too (sending MS in 2 or 3 J).

I was told that the scope is to "back up" and not loose time...

I am not judging what it is . Right , wrong, ethical orunethical.

For sure this is "a strategy".

What I see from my standpoint of view is the following:

there are too many "variables" for a paper to be:

-reviewed

-accepted

-scored (IF)

etc.

I am convinved that the actual peer reviewed system is one of the best we could have!

But for sure there is still room for improvement, don't you think so?

Reviewing a paper is a "real" job. Time, concentration, study...and a minimal load of honesty (:-)! This is a lot of responsibility isn't?

How come this job is not remunareted?

Why should it be on a volunteer basis? Because is "prestigious" to be a reviewer? Yes of course it is...

But would this condition open a door to many other conflicts of interest? Prestige pression, competition because from the same field and many many others conflicts I could mention.

Again I am amazed that there is not an International Scientific Reviewers Chart -or maybe only a consensus/recommendation- for Journal to choose cross-validate and remunerate their reviewers...

Think about: no reviewers ---> no peer-r articles --> no Journals!

Do I hear some Editors..?

@Boris: I have heard this too (sending MS in 2 or 3 J).

I was told that the scope is to "back up" and not loose time...

I am not judging what it is . Right , wrong, ethical orunethical.

For sure this is "a strategy".

What I see from my standpoint of view is the following:

there are too many "variables" for a paper to be:

-reviewed

-accepted

-scored (IF)

etc.

I am convinved that the actual peer reviewed system is one of the best we could have!

But for sure there is still room for improvement, don't you think so?

Reviewing a paper is a "real" job. Time, concentration, study...and a minimal load of honesty (:-)! This is a lot of responsibility isn't?

How come this job is not remunareted?

Why should it be on a volunteer basis? Because is "prestigious" to be a reviewer? Yes of course it is...

But would this condition open a door to many other conflicts of interest? Prestige pression, competition because from the same field and many many others conflicts I could mention.

Again I am amazed that there is not an International Scientific Reviewers Chart -or maybe only a consensus/recommendation- for Journal to choose cross-validate and remunerate their reviewers...

Think about: no reviewers ---> no peer-r articles --> no Journals!

Do I hear some Editors..?

@Alessandro: It is like a balsam for me to hear (read) your opinion(s). Yes, the publishers are well organized and know how to make money, while we the writers are neither organized nor have the right sense for smelling the money ... nor can efficiently make money ... Do not get me wrong - I am not trying to tell that money is everything, but at least ... the money is a vital part of our existence ... and we shall be able to make/use it efficiently.

Reviewer remuneration would be nice, but I think there is a fair chance that journals (publishing houses) would charge the authors. That would cause more harm than doing good then....

Indeed, I am not asking for reviewers to be remunerated for their work - this is another Q. My first concern is that the authors get nothing for their published papers while the publishers charge (big!) subscriptions to individuals (even authors) and still bigger for the libraries.

And about remuneration of review work? ... I am (let say) satisfied to get the journal free of charge and that I get extra points in my curricula for being a reviewer.