Here's an idea: What if editors confidentially flagged low-quality reviews to the reviewer? Not for punishment, but as a way to quietly stabilize quality standards over time. Could this be more effective than 'reward' systems for good reviews? 5/5 #Science #AcademicChatter

This trend can't be good for science. But how can we improve this? Better (and paid) editorial training for maneuvering conflicting feedback? I'm keen to hear how others think we can strengthen the system for better scientific outcomes. 4/5 #ECRchat

The result? Manuscripts come back with minor tweaks (wording...), ignoring core scientific points. This forces diligent reviewers to repeat themselves over multiple rounds, which devalues our time and expertise and is frustratingly inefficient for a free service. 3/5 #AcademicChatter #Peerreview

The core problem: a single, low-effort (positive or negative!) co-review can completely undermine a thoughtful, detailed review. This leaves authors confused and editors in a tough spot, often leading them to pass on contradictory revision requests. Is this a common experience? #ECRchat #Reviewer2

2.1/2 It's a chronic issue to get reviewers, however, it seems to be that no matter how much one highlights the strength (or flaws tbh) of a finding (novel or even confirmatory #replicationcrisis), another obviously less carrying reviewer can affect the process so that the authors must be confused..