> Coming from academia, these sort of papers would not pass any sort of double-bind peer review process. Where's the actual science? Where are the experiments?

> Coming from academia, these sort of papers would not pass any sort of double-bind peer review process. Where's the actual science? Where are the experiments? Also coming from academia, I'm surprised with the amount of crap that makes it through "peer review". And there's nothing wrong with concept papers as long as they don't purport to be more than that. Lastly, I don't think the review stage is ever truly double-blind. In a niche field, you almost always have some idea of who the paper's authors are.