as a regular writer in peer reviewed journals I have to say that the author of this article is not a knowledgable person; he is not a researcher and as a result he has no direct experience. Al most all journals today have peer reviews; that is also true for most publishing companies. It is mandatory. If a journal has no such system, it is not considered to be an academic journal and authors do not get any credit for publishing in those journals ( for example Harvard Business Review is not a journal from where one can get any credit but one may get a lot of publicity).
normally widely publicised magazines are not peer reviewed.
However, that does not mean I am supporting this system. The system has many flaws and it should be abolished. I know personally most reviewer do not read the article; they may not have any knowledge; they may reject a paper but he will copy from that rejected paper and publish in the same journal in his own name( I was a victim of that kind from one M.P of the Dutch Parliament Rick Van Der Flaugh who has rejected my paper but copied the most important parts of it and published in the same journal). There was a study made by Joan Martin of Stanford University, where she has sent 10 already published papers in well known journals to some of the well known journals, most of the papers got rejected by the new referees. There is the classic example of S.N.Bose, whose paper on Thermodynamics was rejected in every English language journals. So in fru
