Hard disagree. Reviewers are helpful when they identify and contextualize a manuscript’s strengths AND its weaknesses. That includes pointing out if and how it can be improved. https://twitter.com/blekhman/status/1194269025758568449

Good editors aren’t looking for reasons to reject a manuscript. They are trying to determine if they could one day be accepted.

We also want authors to submit to us again, even if we reject their papers. The key to that is a positive review experience, which includes advice on how to move forward when submitting a manuscript elsewhere.

My philosophy as EIC - and passed along to our ed board - was that we wanted to accept every paper sent to @biotropica. If it wasn’t ready, we would tell authors why not.

“We are looking for reasons to accept, not for reasons to reject” radically changes how an editorial board operates and - in my opinion - makes for a more equitable and inclusive scholarly community.

(And yes, sometimes the advice for what needs to be done is something they can’t really do, like “sample differently” or “start over”. But you can still point out both the flaws and how to fix them. Nicely.)