I have been on both sides.as a reviewer for IEEE and ACM journals, and as an author who has received peer review. The experience has made me wonder whether the current closed peer review model is serving science well.
As a reviewer: I put significant effort into reviews (usually 1500–2500 words). But I occasionally see reviews from other reviewers that are 3 sentences and completely uninformative.
As an author: I have received reviews that clearly misunderstood the paper's contribution. I have also received brilliant reviews that genuinely improved the paper.
Discussion question: What changes to peer review would actually improve quality? Open peer review? Paid reviewing? Double-blind everywhere?
Interested to hear from people across different fields and career stages.