My first answer is NO, but after receiving another manuscript to review of a lower-than-bottom quality I am starting to have second thoughts... Maybe those people would think twice if they had to pay.

thanks for your answer, but since reviewing is free, time consuming and an honor to review, i do not agree with the fact that authors should pay only for secretarial works,.Futhermore, the Editorial board of this very high impact factor review implemented a new policy of pages charges. Since in France, institutions, Universities and my department have no funds for submission and publication, i decided to submit our manuscript to an other Editor responsible of a "free review" but with smaller impact factor. i am very sorry , but i do not like this new wave" pay just to be reviewed", I debated this question in a letter toThe Lancet " Editorial code of conduct" (vol 379, February, 4 2012). I use to review nearly twenty to thirty manuscrpits by year, and unfortunately , majority of these papers need major revisions, but i am not sure that, if the authors had to pay to be reviewed, their manuscrpits will largely improve.

I have read your letter in the Lancet and agree with you that a requirement to pay for a secretarial work is inappropriate. My "second thoughts" about paying for being reviewed came from my experience as a referee in my field (theoretical chemistry). I am refereeing for several journals with varying impact factors, and I can say that people usually send good-looking manuscripts to journals with a higher IF, while a situation is different if journals with low IF (in our field it is

I perfecly agree with your point of view, but in my speciality, Critical Care Medecie/ Internal Medecine and Nephrology, with IF between 2. 5 to 51, if you have the chance to get a New England Journal of Medecine publication, all the manuscrpits i reviewed were of a good quality. The acceptation being based of course on the novelty, the results, perfect methodology ( the major problem) and adequate conclusions. Last month and for the first time during two decades of reviewing, i received a manuscript at least in his first draft concerning a prospective work but without more than fifty percent of exclusion for cause of missing data, sent to a Journal less than one month after the end of the last inclusion. For the first time, i proposed to definitely reject this paper, a series rejected by the Editor in chief after three other reviewers comments.

When you have to revised one of your manuscript, some Editor, if you have taken into account all the remarks and comments of the reviewers, decide very rapidely and thus alone to publish your manuscript. For the future,i think that Editorial Boards may implement a preview of the study which could be immediately returned to the authors if they send a "first draft" or as you said a "junck". Editorial boards are used to improve some times , at least for French authors, the quality of the English, thus, they could do this first screening of availabity to be sent to reviewers.