Re: 1: no shit. The turnaround is for rebuttals. I try to do thorough reviews (I have published plenty as well) but realistically I recognize that no one has th

Re: 1: no shit. The turnaround is for rebuttals. I try to do thorough reviews (I have published plenty as well) but realistically I recognize that no one has the sort of free cycles required to catch everything in advance. What's worse is that an awful lot of reviews are pure political bullshit. In the end it's the people who may or may not try to build on your work (or mine!) that are the best judges of whether it's BS. Re: 2: probably, but diffusion of ideas benefits massively from readily accessible documentation. One of the things that will cause me to immediately reject a paper is if its method implementation does not work as described. I will always reject in such cases. They are alarmingly common and this is one of the few easy cases in reviewing. Lack of an implementation is also cause to reject. Re: 3: it has everything to do with it. Unless you're running and publishing trials please don't lecture me on this. See opentrials for a particularly frightening take on why published trials so poorly represent those submitted to the FDA or registered with CTEP. Meanwhile actual RCTs get buried by shitbags demanding more subjects than there are recorded cases in the past 40 years (no joke). If you're not doing trials, you may have to take my word for it (or get involved in RCTs and find out for yourself). A lot of the enterprise is actively harmful to science by omission.