There has been some recent discussion concerning the degree of thoroughness in the peer review system. Although this will always vary from reviewer to reviewer guidelines should be able to move the reviewer mean thoroughness.

Chuck thinks that we have been rushing things, i.e. that review is too light:

I figured as much. I'm not in a hurry. I think Emil et al. are rushing these publications as it is. I'm fine with a couple of months, actually. Slow, slow hippo here. I just want to get the process started.

Meng Hu is a very thorough reviewer who replicates the entire analysis that authors submit, it seems. While laudable, it is quite a lot of work, and since reviewers work for free, it can perhaps not be expected of them to do this.

Thoughts?

I agree that Philbrick's reviews mentioned above have been unhelpful. Reviews should be constructive. It is very rare that there is absolutely nothing to improve in a matter. I know that my papers have improved a lot from peer review from this journal.