The "experts" very rarely take enough time to actually understand the paper and question its assumptions, and often aren't even qualified to do so.
I had one article on the Xerox Star, way back in the day, that passed peer review for TOOIS with just some reasonable suggestions to cite related work.
was rejected by CACM, by an "expert" review at Microsoft Research who admitted he knew nothing about patent law. Microsoft is a big believer in software patents, so he's hardly unbiased.
His comments said at one point, because he talked to a patent lawyer "the patent law has changed!" while clearly not knowing that the laws on obviousness had not changed at all.
The "experts" very rarely take enough time to actually understand the paper and question its assumptions, and often aren't even qualified to do so.
I had one article on the Xerox Star, way back in the day, that passed peer review for TOOIS with just some reasonable suggestions to cite related work.
However, this one: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/results.cfm (which was cited in an amicus brief to SCOTUS for the CLS Bank case)
was rejected by CACM, by an "expert" review at Microsoft Research who admitted he knew nothing about patent law. Microsoft is a big believer in software patents, so he's hardly unbiased.
His comments said at one point, because he talked to a patent lawyer "the patent law has changed!" while clearly not knowing that the laws on obviousness had not changed at all.