These are extremely important issues that should have been discussed with the editorial board, but it appears that Taylor and Francis has no interest in the board's perspective in this regard. Of course, we realize that Taylor and Francis is a business and is responsible for the financial success (or failure) of the journals in its charge, but the irony here is that as bad as this is from our "mathematical" perspective, it is potentially an even bigger business mistake. Moving forward, the multiple review system will likely dissuade many authors from considering Communications in Algebra as an outlet. Only the highest-tier journals regularly implement more than one full review (and even at these journals, we do not believe that multiple reviews are mandated as policy). Frankly speaking, Communications in Algebra improved in prominence and stature under Scott Chapman's tenure, but Communications in Algebra is still not the Annals of Mathematics. Why would any author wait for a year or more for two reviews to come in when there are many other options (Journal of Algebra, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, etc.) which are higher profile with less waiting time? The multiple review process has the potential to create a huge backlog of "under review" papers and greatly diminish the quality of submissions. It is likely the case that in a short while, Communications in Algebra will have significantly fewer quality submissions and could become a publishing mill for low-grade papers to meet its quota. In the long run, this is not good for the journal's reputation or for the business interests of Taylor and Francis. (3/4)