> Since there have been several reports of essentially nonexistent peer review from the journal, many people are a bit skeptical. Speaking from personal experi

> Since there have been several reports of essentially nonexistent peer review from the journal, many people are a bit skeptical. Speaking from personal experience (from our own group and also from a colleague), their peer review is no better or worse than any of the other big-name publishers. And, in regards to the OP's comments, I wouldn't consider where a paper is published to be a particularly good indicator of its quality, provided it's at least a well-known/well-established journal (e.g. in the top-20 on Google's rankings for a given field[1]). I've been accepted and rejected by both prestigious and lesser-well-known journals, and experienced peer review by both, and it's always been very variable in quality. There also seems to be very little correlation between how interesting/ground-breaking/mundane/boring the research is and which journal it gets accepted into, and this mirrors the experience of a lot of my colleagues. The simple fact is that the big journals just get far too many submissions and the research is usually too specialised to guarantee consistently-good peer review, or even consistently good selection of what papers should even be accepted. [1] https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=en https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=e...