To the comments suggesting preprint servers as the solution, it's worth remembering that they are subject to much higher levels of noise, especially at high volume times like now.
In early April, my co-authors and I were planning to submit a computational COVID manuscript (I was the first author). The journals were overrun with COVID submissions, and required preprint submission. This was a sticking point for my co-authors, who felt they had a much bigger paper on their hands given more time, and were opposed to a preprint submission. Personally, I was in favour of the preprint, since I felt we had hit the upper limit of what could be achieved with our collective resources. The other authors disagreed, and outvoted me to bring in a big name author who could steam roll his way into a reputable journal. The only way they could tempt a big name scientist would be to offer up the first author credit, so I bowed out.
At the time, there were 4,500 preprints dealing with COVID, which just seems bonkers. Honestly, even most of the published work around COVID is of poor quality.
Honestly, it's not that straight forward, which is why I didn't mind leaving the manuscript in the end. I did much of the work bringing it to a workable manuscript, but I didn't originate the project.
I was approached by the corresponding author, who had originated and done most of the initial work. This was just a data dump, and he felt he didn't have the time or the ability to polish it into a manuscript. My contribution was to analyse the data, and write most of the manuscript. However, it became clear that the two other authors were pushing a narrative which I felt wasn't well supported by the data we had. We discussed two possible options: bring in an immunologist to determine if our results make sense, which I voted for, or stick to our guns. The second option would have also required submitting to a preprint, which they were against. The corresponding author felt the claims were justified, and decided that a more forceful (and prestigeous) first author was what was needed instead, and I agreed. Since my contribution wasn't all that much (about a week of my time?), and I wasn't convinced by the findings, I didn't mind losing the authorship. This sort of negotiating happens all the time in academia, so it's unsurprising.
In early April, my co-authors and I were planning to submit a computational COVID manuscript (I was the first author). The journals were overrun with COVID submissions, and required preprint submission. This was a sticking point for my co-authors, who felt they had a much bigger paper on their hands given more time, and were opposed to a preprint submission. Personally, I was in favour of the preprint, since I felt we had hit the upper limit of what could be achieved with our collective resources. The other authors disagreed, and outvoted me to bring in a big name author who could steam roll his way into a reputable journal. The only way they could tempt a big name scientist would be to offer up the first author credit, so I bowed out.
At the time, there were 4,500 preprints dealing with COVID, which just seems bonkers. Honestly, even most of the published work around COVID is of poor quality.