If, after 28 months of waiting and the third request, I within a few hours receive “Reviewer # 1: Sorry that this review took so long. However, this paper does not contain any results of value”, I know that the referee read only the author's name and, possibly, the title of the article.
If I get the message "How about you try to establish a reputation for yourself on several less serious questions before claiming to solve * both * the Goldbach and Twin Prime problems?", Then I begin to think that the solution of these problems is reserved for the author of this message And he was promised to show “the Book". Is it ethical to give such advice?
If they write to me “Yes, I will not accept this work. ... From very general considerations, I believe that you have a mistake in your work. Formally, of course, I have to specify it, but I do not want to do it because of saving my own time”, I understand that they read the work, they did not find any mistakes and refuse, just in case.
Of course, the referee can save two hours of his time, and as a result, the author loses months, years, and sometimes, and all his life. Obviously, in order to recognize the results of my work, courage is needed. But, if “Reviewers' comments: ... I suggest rejecting it on grounds that it does not meet the standards of mathematical correctedness practiced by our journal”, I do not understand what is more important, form or content. I’ve always believed that the result is more important.
Sometimes they refer to feelings (“the referees felt given the methods you are using, it is hard to imagine that the results you claim are valid”), or belief (“I'm sure that your "elementary evidence" of Goldbach and the twins have mistakes, many years of experience does not allow me to believe in them, but I also can not spend time searching for them”).
But I'm not interested in the feelings of referees who did not even get acquainted with the proposed method and, I did not ask anyone to take my word for it. I offer the proof.
This is only part of the disclaimer, but there is not a single review or indication of an error. Is it ethical for judges to make a conclusion about a job without reading it, but only on the basis of their feelings and assumptions about what is written in the article?
Is every referee a priori smarter than any author to such an extent that in several phrases pulled out of context, can determine where the author's thought can turn? Should not the referee read the article at least until the first error and point to it? And if the error is not found, recognize the work as correct. Otherwise, he should declare himself incompetent and ask the editor to transfer the article to another referee Really all mathematicians not only do not see, but also do not want to see beyond their nose?
How can the author get an honest, unbiased assessment of his work in this situation?