What I'm still angry about is that most referees today don't seem to care to do their job properly, and neither do journal editors.
Einstein came from a tradition where members of an Academy of Sciences were entitled to having their scholarly works automatically published with very little scrutiny; refereeing someone else's works is out of place because all discussion comes only after publication. The Physical Review operated in a tradition where referees are honestly trying to understand the new research and comment on it; a referee's objection is a possible reason for rejection.
Einstein's displeasure was due to misplaced expectations; he expected the first tradition but got the second one. Your displeasure is similar: you expect the second tradition to hold, i.e., you expect referees to try to understand your research and comment on it. Instead, you get the modern treatment where the referees don't care even to read the papers. The editors of the journals that rejected your work also don't read your papers; instead, perhaps they follow a hunch about getting some political advantages in the academic game if they publish Professor N's work instead of yours (regardless of the contents of those works).
no subject
Einstein came from a tradition where members of an Academy of Sciences were entitled to having their scholarly works automatically published with very little scrutiny; refereeing someone else's works is out of place because all discussion comes only after publication. The Physical Review operated in a tradition where referees are honestly trying to understand the new research and comment on it; a referee's objection is a possible reason for rejection.
Einstein's displeasure was due to misplaced expectations; he expected the first tradition but got the second one. Your displeasure is similar: you expect the second tradition to hold, i.e., you expect referees to try to understand your research and comment on it. Instead, you get the modern treatment where the referees don't care even to read the papers. The editors of the journals that rejected your work also don't read your papers; instead, perhaps they follow a hunch about getting some political advantages in the academic game if they publish Professor N's work instead of yours (regardless of the contents of those works).