One of my main problems with peer reviews is the relative quality of the peers/reviewers and the yardsticks used to rate them as peers in the first place.
I once considered joining the local craftsmen's society, mainly because it was suggested to me as being A Good Thing To Do. However when I inspected some of their work and found that these clownscraftspeople would be 'evaluating' my own work for at least 3 years before allowing me to become a full member, I politely declined.
In related news, I personally know of at least one national magazine whose editor uses SpellCheck as his only proofread. A peer? OF WHOM? Any tenth-grader knows better than that!
OK, enough of my soapbox, regards, Joe
