I wonder whether anyone has ever submitted an article to a peer-reviewed journal that has been accepted without requiring a single change?

The perfect article, no changes after you finished writing it, nothing that hasn’t been explained by the paper, nothing the reviewers can talk about except..Well Done!

I certainly don’t know anyone who hasn’t had to make a few changes to the paper after peer-review. I haven’t reviewed many articles, but it seems to me that there is a certain amount of pressure on peer reviewers to search for holes in the paper.I remember a Prof. once reviewing a paper for a high impact journal saying, “Its for …, can’t allow it to get in that easily”, almost as if the better the journal the harder the reviewers must work to find reasons for change in the paper.

Obviously, it is a vicious cycle to which I have become a party. I hope over my career that I can change my mindset to the point where I ask myself,” are there large flaws in the paper? Have they forgotten an experiment or a result that needs to be done to change the hypothesis? Have they forgotten to explain a result? Are there any methods issues”. If not, fine. no changes. perfect!

Of course, I might be completely wrong about this and there are researchers and scientists who never rarely need to make changes. If so, please let me know if you have a job vacancy!