The peer-review system, as very flawed as it is, protects us from a certain level of bad and in some cases fake science. It's not very difficult to establish a

The peer-review system, as very flawed as it is, protects us from a certain level of bad and in some cases fake science. It's not very difficult to establish a peer-review ring when you use freely available emails, and journals are increasingly aware of this [0,1]. That's why I'm often suspect of journals who let this slide, because it's a sign they don't screen very well. In 2017, in light of the widely successful and low-barrier ways to game the peer-review system, I don't buy your "leaving an institution" argument. Corresponding author is more commonly the professor than the main author, and faculty at academic institutions almost always have "e-mail for life" privileges. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/1... [1] http://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400 http://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1...