> Reviewers are pushed to accept papers instead of rejecting them, because a rejected paper makes no money Prestigious journals have very low (single-digit per

> Reviewers are pushed to accept papers instead of rejecting them, because a rejected paper makes no money Prestigious journals have very low (single-digit percentage) acceptance rates. One or two rungs down, the standard domain-specific journals are still rigorous, and you need to do substantial work to get published in them. It's a hurdle that any decent graduate student with a good advisor can pass, but it's not as if you can just write anything and get published. There are junk journals that will publish anything, but I don't think scientists generally pay much attention to those journals. > I sincerely pity the PhD student who needs to run a serious, systematic literature review in 2024. Hell sounds more attractive. Doing a literature review is not that difficult. You begin with a few highly cited papers. Then you look at what papers they reference in the intro. You also look at the list of papers that cite them and sort by the number of citations. You can work in both directions and pretty quickly establish what the important papers in the field are. Notice that the important thing here is to look at citations. Getting a paper into a journal is only the first, most basic step. Peer review is only an initial quality check. Over time, other scientists decide what papers are important and cite them. If a paper racks up 100 citations, that means a lot more than just passing peer review.