> The decision to publish is made by the publisher, and that's what people care about. I'm saying that it isn't. Modulo weird edge cases, the publisher delegat

> The decision to publish is made by the publisher, and that's what people care about. I'm saying that it isn't. Modulo weird edge cases, the publisher delegates that decision to reviewers. If they choose to reject a paper, then it gets rejected. Unless I'm really mistaken about how things work. My only first-hand experience is in PL, a field in which we publish in conferences rather than journals. I've sat in on a PC meeting where the decision to accept or reject papers was made. In cases where the reviews were clear, the paper was accepted or rejected without fanfare. For borderline papers, the decision was made through discussion among the reviewers who had reviewed that paper and the PC. I don't think the PC members were paid for it. The reviewers certainly weren't. > Nobody cares what they think. I care what they think. It would be really interesting and informative to have a system where paper reviews were public. EDIT: What's your experience with publishers? Do you know more than I do?