Quote:
Originally Posted by beppe
No doubt about that point in my mind. That is: a review is better than none.
Nevertheless it is quite common that the reviewing process is very often controlled by lobbying mechanisms, as it is fundamental for the career's advancements of the authors, and for the clout of the reviewers.
|
Having been involved in the peer review process, both as an author and as a reviewer, in my field at least (astronomy) I was certainly not aware of any "lobbying" to conform to particular viewpoints.
Do you have any specific examples in mind, beppe?