I see that many scientific journals conduct multiple stages of manuscript review. Do the reviewers have enough time to do this? Does it make sense to have a first stage of review (three reviewers), and after they have completed their work, the revised manuscript is not returned to them but is instead directed to another round of review? Then, after the second review, a third round of review is conducted on the manuscript that has been revised twice. What do you think the outcome would be? The manuscript would resemble two chapters in terms of the number of pages and would contain answers to many questions that may not be related to the manuscript itself. A very small section (such as the geometric correction of a satellite image) could occupy one-sixth of the manuscript due to inquiries from six to nine reviewers. You can also understand the main reason why journals immediately issue a certificate of evaluation upon submission of the review form, which may one day become meaningless. This certificate costs them nothing; it is merely a digital certificate, yet as usual, the reviewers are very pleased with the certificate they receive. By the way, how many certificates do you have? do you have a certain collection of a specific publishing Firm? With the rise of open access publishing and the (relatively) increasing restrictions on regular publication, it is important to encourage local journals and reconsider impact factor criteria, which confuse many researchers when contemplating the publication of their scientific output. If one of our professors or doctors could clarify this issue, we would appreciate it. Some reviewers and authors might think twice before adding their names to this discussion, which is already raging in offices and laboratories but not in public.