Anybody else feel like response to reviewers have gotten longer and longer? Exhausted at the prospect of another 40+ page rebuttal to the collected works of Reviewer 3.

A few comments about "editors not doing their jobs". I mean, sure, in an ideal world. In reality, I think it is very difficult for editors to ignore scientific-seeming arguments from reviewers. We are more to blame than editors, but frankly, that's neither here nor there, either/

The real question is how do we create a system in which there is incentive to give reasonably addressable feedback on papers. It's not enough to say "this is how we *should* act", but rather, given how we *do* act, devise an appropriate system.