Sorry but no. You can't say that. This "solution" might solve something that has been highlighted in the article, but who said it was a problem? I'd rather hav

Sorry but no. You can't say that. This "solution" might solve something that has been highlighted in the article, but who said it was a problem? I'd rather have a very slow but rigorous and scientific review process than what is offered here. Good science should not care for a few month of review instead of a few weeks. If the presented results seem important to the point of needing to be urgently out there, you can always upload a preprint to arXiv or a similar repository before or during the review process. Paid for fast peer-reviewing is WRONG. It prioritizes the science done in rich laboratories of the rich countries. That's not how science is supposed to work. It's stupid to think that introducing this "market forces" into the reviewing process won't have an effect on its output (and I'm not talking about speed here).