Want an earful? Put some academics in a bar, buy the beer, and bring up academic journals.
Most of the complaints will be about dumb reviewers, which I understand as someone who reviews for several journals. I no doubt deserve the criticism.
While not naming names here, I've had an article at a mass comm journal since 2010. Yes, I've swapped emails with the editor, the last back in 2011, until the editor has stopped responding to my queries. I've stopped trying, but as I head to AEJMC (our major conference) this week, there's a good chance I might run into the editor.
(Note how carefully I mask the gender and journal title. It's not like I need the pub, but I am presenting the article at the conference on the idea that I need to get something useful out of it other than being told that one reviewer has read the piece, liked it, but we're waiting on one really really really really slooooowwwww reviewer to finish up the evaluation).
If I do come across the editor (who I don't know personally), do I ask: "What the hell?" In my talk, do I slyly slip in some obscure mention of how the article has been sitting for quite a while on the desk of an editor, so that's why it seems a bit dated? Do I wear a sign that says: JOURNALNAME SUCKS?
Probably none of these. And yet, I have plenty to consider before I hit the conference Wednesday night. After all, I'm there till Sunday afternoon. Pissing someone off, that's a way to spend several days at an academic conference doing PhDweeb stuff.