To be specific, I have a few questions regarding the Review and Publishing methodology.

1) Why are there no comments sections in the Journals where the first reviewers (or anyone who has read the work) can provide their feedback and it remains open for everyone to see. Isn't it a transparent method?

2) In today's world, journals like 'Jove' are coming up where the videos of the actual experiments can be uploaded, why is that it has not been picked up in the Physics community? This is not only important for Experimentalists but for the Theoreticians too.

3) Where can these suggestions and feedback be provided to the Journals?

  • 1
    Please ask one question per post. These are three separate questions with independent answers, so you can ask them in three separate posts.
    – ff524
    Feb 19 '16 at 8:18
  • 3
    Also, I believe How is publishing in JoVe (a "video journal") perceived? addresses your second question - the answers there explain the cost and difficulty associated with producing a video.
    – ff524
    Feb 19 '16 at 8:21
  • 4
    Also, the premise to your second question is wrong: Most journals nowadays accept supplementary materials, including videos. However, most experiments do not allow for videos that one would like to watch.
    – Wrzlprmft
    Feb 19 '16 at 8:21
  • Your point 1 was discussed in part here: Towards a Stackexchange-like comment/reputation system for research papers
    – Cape Code
    Feb 19 '16 at 11:25
  • 1
    Why do you assume that the "new" way is better than then old or tested way, without any proof? New does not equal better or improved.
    – Alexandros
    Feb 19 '16 at 16:44