I deeply value the role of peer reviewers, whose contributions are essential for identifying areas of improvement and strengthening the quality of scholarly work. Their observations and recommendations undoubtedly enhance the rigor of the final manuscript. Nevertheless, I have observed that the disparity between reviewers’ ratings can be considerable, and that the lowest score is ultimately the one displayed upon publication. This practice is concerning, as the review process typically allows authors to address all comments and substantially improve the manuscript. Consequently, the final published version may carry a rating that no longer reflects the quality achieved after revisions. In this regard, selecting the lowest rating—particularly when reviewers differ markedly (for example, one assigning a B and another a D)—does not seem to accurately represent the final state of the work. When all issues raised during peer review have been resolved, it would be reasonable for the rating to reflect the improvements made. Additionally, authors are encouraged to submit their revised manuscript to an external company associated with the journal to ensure it meets all editorial standards. Although the journal itself does not charge for this service, the affiliated company conducts an initial review for 25 USD and subsequently recommends further corrections, followed by an additional fee that is considerably high. Given these circumstances, I respectfully express my disagreement with this aspect of the process, as it may not fully align with the principles of fairness and transparency expected in academic publishing.