Please post some evidence (actual articles, the peer-reviews, the editor's replies, etc.) to show this is so. I'll be glad to pass your evidence to the publishers. You must have evidence though. Many well know kooks (Archimeded Plutonium, Albert Silvermann and James Harris on the Usenet, for example) also claim peer-review is a joke because their junk is rejected.
The review is so shallow that it could not possibly have cost the reviewer more than ten minutes of his/her life. It picked off the author for saying things never said, totally misunderstood his elaboration of Gibbs energy and its role in biological systems, and then criticized the author for not taking into account chaos theory.
But chaos theory would be the last thing any intelligent reviewer would expect to find in an article exlicitly devoted to the explication of biological organizational principles. Any alert individual would probably instantly realize that chaos theory has practically zero role to play in such an investigation.
In my view this reviewer was not only lazy, but hostile to any and all insights that do not directly connect with his or her present concerns and/or previous commitments.
And on the strength of one inarticulate and nonresponsive review-cum-VETO, an excellent article has been condemned to oblivion. (At least for now....)
There is something really, really sick about this. I have no permission to publish my evidence. I hope that circumstance may change.
But until that time, I am not free to respond to further queries regarding this matter.
Sorry Doc. Thanks for writing.
Doc, I was so "carried away there" I didn't have the civility/decency to thank you for your offer of help. So please let me thank you for that here, and now.