"I now can do a review in 1-2 hours". I am in science industry for over 2 decades engaging in all it takes. Reviewing a MS I handle still takes me several days, at least 1 full day. 1-2 hours I need just to properly read it a first time. But aside that the story matches my editorial experience.

Dan, please don't get this wrong, I do love your posts and your work, as I too love my job and working with wild animals too. But I can't avoid finding social media posts with captured animals as not really something we should use too lightly (at all). Just say'n, and really appreciating your work.

Partially agree. Problem is that these pro-reviewers would become gatekeepers. They would need to remain on the bleeding edge. That is why reviewers should be part of the very same community. Separation of powers imo can't remain fair and good, it would essentially remove the "peer" from the process

What we need to make sure is that there is incentive for good and useful reviewing. Obviously there is big money in publishing and of course the publishing houses add value to what the scientists do. The question is how can the staggering profit margins be redistributed for it all to be fair.

A solution could be to solicit paid review (offering equivalent to the OA fees). The problem now is that if you use money, very quickly being a reviewer becomes a business model. Meaning review as many papers as possible in as little time as possible, and focus on earning than serving.

This is what we do as a quick fix: pre-publish before submission. Submit to and review for society run, closed access journals, or decent open access journals. Decent OA are e.g. journals that do not tie fees to impact factor. Spend time and expertise for science not for shareholders.

The tokens (aka customer retention) and so called rewards like certificates to be added to a CV are outright insulting. I refuse to accept any of those glass beads for the gold I have on offer. We should redirect the immense money publishing houses make for their shareholders to science.

How about relying on blockchain? Publishing requires payment, which can be earned by doing work, or paying others to purchase publication currency. Likewise through contributing to the IT infrastructure institutions can "mine" wealth. Etc. I am sure this can be worked out. There might even profit.

And do tell both the editor and the reviewer that you did not appreciate the delivery, but appreciate the intention. Maybe they can and want to work on self improvement. Stay professional. In the end of day the reviewer spent time and effort, they could have just say nay, like the 20 others did.

Of course not how we want to treat each other. But, as an editor I go through 20 plus rejects before I find 1 doing the job. Polite reviewers, please commit to peer review. 2nd, take a professional perspective. Ignore the tone and condesence, see what you can use, don't let rest come too close.