Very interesting read. I have both submitted and reviewed several papers and grants. My impression is that peer-review is not as bad (as democracy example of th

Very interesting read. I have both submitted and reviewed several papers and grants. My impression is that peer-review is not as bad (as democracy example of the author), only when done with patience and passion. The barriers it creates are really troublesome. I am doing a line of research in a very conservative community. You will be surprised how easily my work gets rejected from the journals, because they don't have the capacity, view and vision for such work. The grant scene is even much more devastating. Other groups don't want to let you in. You don't know who reviewed your grant; the reasons given are not major, but yet you are rejected. So, you end up wasting lots of research time looking for fundings. Quite boring. Open journals are an alternative, of course. Yet, they need to be studies if they are an effective method of publishing. Then, the question is how to trust the results, and deal with many contradictory results. However, it seems it is time to tackle them than to worry though. My last publication goes to an open journal. edit: typos