I think it varies. As a scientist from a lesser known group, PR is essentially a way for the establishment to keep others from docking units off their genital l

I think it varies. As a scientist from a lesser known group, PR is essentially a way for the establishment to keep others from docking units off their genital length as well as threatening their grant funding. I find that more established scientists from the most prestigious universities make tend to be okay with PR because it seems to benefit them and they tend glowingly review each others papers. After recieving my dearth of harshness from reviewers and seeing trash (that is often rife with the same issues and worse!) from these same cats make it into Phys Rev it becomes too painfully obvious it's almost self-satricizing. I think the primary issue with PR is its fundamental assumptions are flawed. Papers authors are NEVER anonymous and can't be while reviewers make it obvious who they are. BTW, that you have a paper that took you years to prepare puts you in the far tail of the distribution.