Recently, I got a paper to review for a journal (Elsevier) which is very reputed. The fact is that this journal had rejected two of my earlier works after keeping it under review for more than a year approximately.
I understand that in science, it is good to forget the past; however, it still keeps me haunted when I think that my works became obsolete because of unnecessary delay in the review process that resulted in no satisfactory comment on rejection.
Is it weird that the journal is now thinking that I am capable of reviewing a manuscript?
Anyway, past apart, how should I respond? Should I accept the review invitation? Or, should I just say that I can't do the review, which will be like Tit-For-Tat. I don't know, I am confused.