Prof. Santa Claus

@P.Shark I'm not asserting that the journal is dodgy. I'm giving you a reason why an editor will not give you the identify of other reviewers. You could be a friend of the authors.

@Allure How would you know? You expect an editor/system to know who is connected to who? good luck with that. I'm not talking about reviewers who have published together or connected on LinkedIn or Facebook.

How does the editor know that you are not a friend of the authors?

I'm wondering how many buildings did JHU and Stanford have when they first started? Maybe the start up is just the cost of the land (possibly free) and one building. With KAUST, I'm guessing they are building an entire 'city'. I think if you factor in the cost of the buildings that JHU/Stanford now have, and also the number of staff over the years, it's probably comparable.

In Australia, students are well protected by their university. Your supervisor is bound by university policies. He/she can't kick you out for good reasons. Miscommunication is hardly a reason. I bet the reason he/she wants you out is because he/she has exceeded the number of students allowed by the university. Consequently, he/she is no longer allowed to recruit better students -- i.e., your supervisor is experiencing 'buyer's remorse'.

Wow, Prof Mill is full of him/herself. I could care less about whether someone spelled my title or name incorrectly. Hell, they can write Dear Santa Claus in place of my real name and I would hardly blink.

If it's unrelated, then there shouldn't be any problems. As a reviewer, many times I've been inspired by what I read. As long one is not stealing ideas or deliberately rejecting a paper to one's advantage, there shouldn't be any problems.

Lookup Gallager’s codes. When Robert Gallager invented his codes, they were not practical at all; this was 1960s. After many years, in 1993, a group invented the 'practical' turbo codes, which turned out to be Gallager codes. So technology finally caught up to Gallager's ideas.

The problem you have is 'trust'; i.e., whether other people 'trust' that your work is correct. Journals/conferences through their review process provide some form of 'trust'; the more prestigious a venue is, the more trust one have. Though, it is never 100% trust. What about outside journals/conferences? Ans: the authors' reputation. I follow a few key people's work, where they post yet to be published papers on their web-site or ArXiv. I will read their unpublished work but for others, depends ...

I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. Are you talking about fully 'baked' papers that are (or soon to be) undergoing review, or just some random ideas you wake up with in the morning?