The author draws an unfortunate comparison between publishing and prostitution. Of course he may have done that to get more attention to the scandal of a publish system that has journals that reject almost 90% of the papers they receive. The authors try to make the case for the absurd of the “veto” power of the peer review process and asks for a change in which the reviewers loose that power and can only try to improve the content of the papers assuming that previously the Editor has found that the papers has enough merit to be accepted. Its truth that currently Editors are very conservative and very often all it takes is just a negative opinion from a single reviewer in order to reject a paper. And its very rare that an Editor decide against the opinion of the reviewers. However, that proposal although original could never work because editors are not experts in all the papers they handle and even if they were they could never made a decision prior to the peer review process because they simply do not have enough time for that. If that was implemented the first consequence were that the publishing process would take much more time than it already does (Powell, 2016). Also the author forgets that a lot of Editors are also part of the publishing problem when they reject papers without peer review or much worse when they engage in impact factor manipulations (Falagas et al., 2008; Martin, 2016). Falagas, M. E., & Alexiou, V. G. (2008). The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis, 56(4), 223-226. Martin, B. R. (2016). Editors’ JIF-boosting stratagems–Which are appropriate and which not?. Powell, K. (2016). The waiting game. Nature, 530 (7589), 148.