There have been some discussions here on how long to spend on reviewing a paper (e.g., here).
This question is a bit different in that I'm wondering what are your thoughts about reviewing a paper that is not going to be accepted.
I recently got a request to review a journal paper for a leading IEEE journal. From reading the abstract, introduction, and related work, it is clear that the authors are not aware of the progress that was done in recent years. The paper cites, evaluates, and compares against, 15-20 years old approaches that are far behind the current state of the art.
The problem now is that solution is quite involved and would take some significant time to understand and give feedback on. The only way for the work to be publishable is for the authors to compare against modern techniques and show merit, so the current submission cannot possibly be accepted.
- Would you still spend the time in reviewing the proposed algorithm?
- Would a review that reads "please compare your solution with XX and YY before consider it" be reasonable?
I have mentioned that this is a significant journal since I know that in some journals showing yet-another-solution for an important problem may be published if the solution is reasonable (e.g., if it is simpler than the state of the art but not as effective).