Dear Simon,

We are all running regular routines and writing a good, informative review takes time. One has to read/screen the paper, search for relevant papers, reflect about the manuscript and its value, and finally write the report. In my substantial own experience as an editor and reviewer, I noticed that the quality of reviews differs a lot and, in general, deteriorates from year to year. The standard reviewing time for the paper in times of the regular mail submissions was almost never less than 3-4 months. Nowadays many journals that take it seriously still ask for review in about 3 months time. But there are many that do not want to wait that long. I am very skeptical about journals that ask to submit a review in 10-14 days, it is very unlikely I will leave all my regular teaching, research, and administration routines aside to review the paper. As an editor, for quite a few years I receive the reports where the abstract of the paper is somehow reformulated and the paper is recommended for publication with some minor corrections suggested. I do not trust such "reports" and never use them for taking decisions. On the other hand, I immediately recognize longer, substantial and trustworthy reviews which I take very seriously but they, unfortunately, are turning back not so often nowadays...

The bottom line: I would say that a half-a-page reports written in two-three weeks should be simply disregarded. I believe that reviewers need at least 2-3 months to write a decent report and it should be definitely over a page or even two... Even when we all are eager to see our research published faster, quality should always come first.

Here are previous discussions on similar topics:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Factors_responsible_for_publication_timeline_among_leading_journal_outlets

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Unreasonable_review_times

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_longest_period_in_of_years_and_months_you_ever_waited_to_have_your_article_published_after_being_notified_that_it_is_accepted

And here is a selection of many other discussions on peer review, especially on its quality:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_peer-review_itself_scientific

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_we_obtain_a_better_peer_reviewing

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_you_think_we_might_we_improve_peer_review_and_the_quality_of_scientific_publications

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_prepared_are_article_reviewers_to_make_more_gentle_reviews

That seems fast to me :)

From the position of Editor:

- yes, it is very hard job to get reviewers according their qualification

- press of new line of OA journals is growing

- some OA journals are giving "vouchers" for reviewers, that is, some kind of payment; therefore, situation in the subscription based journals id worsening

From the position of Author:

- I cannot wait year(s), just to know my manuscript is rejected. One such case for me was enough.

- Freedom of science allows me publish where I want, and choose my options how long I am going to wait with review

From the position of Reviewer:

- I will not anymore review manuscripts from journals, which reject my papers just for reasons "we failed to find reviewer, bla bla bla"

Therefore, for Q1 journals maximum reasonable review time should be less than a year (?), Q2 journals - 6 (?) months, OA journals NOT taking fee - a year, with moderate (

I always complete my reviews within two weeks at the longest, and usually the next weekend after receiving the request.

Once an editor let my submission languish for a year. As an editor of three journals in succession, I tried to keep my referees on task for about a four week turn around. However, refereeing work is seldom rewarded with more than a nice dinner annually. The good will 0f all participants Is essential. If all were as prompt as Dr Marek, the system would be improved.