The growing demand for peer review: current challenges and potential reforms

Pierpaolo Pellicori¹Jonathan Douxfils²Robert J Mentz³John GF Cleland¹Charlotte Beaudart^2*

• ¹School of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
• ²Research Unit in Pharmacology and clinical toxicology, Research Institute for Life Sciences (NARILIS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Namur, Namur, Belgium, Namur, Belgium
• ³Duke Clinical Research Institute, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States

Peer review has been a cornerstone of academic publishing for over a century, ensuring the integrity and quality of scienMfic literature. However, the growing volume of manuscript submissions and an over-reliance on a small pool of academics have intensified reviewer faMgue, leading to delays, incomplete evaluaMons, and compromised feedback quality. With more than 100 million hours devoted annually to unpaid peer review, and over 10,000 retracMons reported in 2023 alone, the sustainability of this system is under scruMny. This correspondence explores the challenges of the current peer-review ecosystem and evaluates potenMal reforms to address these issues.We highlight innovaMve peer-review models, including open peer review and pre-and post-publicaMon feedback mechanisms, while acknowledging their risks, such as bias and potenMal disputes. Financial incenMves for reviewers, ocen overlooked, are proposed as a criMcal soluMon to improve engagement, retenMon, and fairness, parMcularly as authors bear substanMal costs for open-access publishing. AddiMonally, the potenMal of global plahorms for reviewer evaluaMon, leveraging metrics such as review quality and Mmeliness, is discussed to enhance accountability and recogniMon.EducaMonal iniMaMves, such as mentorship programs for novice reviewers, are also emphasized to encourage future generaMons of peer reviewers and editors. UlMmately, this manuscript argues for systemic reform to balance the demands of modern research with the need for rigorous and Mmely peer review. Recognizing the intellectual effort of reviewers is essenMal to sustain the academic publishing ecosystem and uphold its foundaMonal goal of advancing global scienMfic knowledge."I am sorry for declining on this occasion, but I receive too many review requests and cannot accept all of them. Researchers cannot con100 million hours every year on peer-review (4). Most academics carry out reviews during evenings or weekends, in addiMon to managing their own heavy workloads, family and social life. This can lead to prolonged turnaround Mmes, incomplete assessments, and divert the a=enMon from other important tasks. Reviewer faMgue compromises the quality of feedback and might lead to failure in idenMfying criMcal flaws in a paper. Worryingly, more than 10,000 retracMons were reported in 2023 alone (5). This is a substanMal waste of resources. The problem is further compounded by an over-reliance on a small pool of academics that more ocen respond to and accept requests, which intensifies the burden on these cooperaMve volunteers. There is no doubt that most reviewers are becoming much more selecMve, responding only to review requests from editors they are familiar with, journals they are associated with, or those we would consider publishing in."If we all stopped agreeing to review for free who would review our own manuscripts? Rather than resis<ng and risking the collapse of the system, perhaps we should focus on proposing more construc<ve solu<ons…but what would those look like?"To meet the demands of modern research, the peer-review ecosystem must evolve, incenMvise reviewer parMcipaMon, enhance transparency, and enforce be=er standards for data verificaMon and methodology but at the same Mme allow authors to express ideas that challenge convenMon. Different models of peer-review have been trialled and implemented in recent years. While Typically, each manuscript is evaluated by two or more independent reviewers. AdopMng a pre-and post-publicaMon review model that encourages mulMple reviewers to engage in discussions on social media plahorms could accelerate the disseminaMon of research and provide ongoing feedback. However, open parMcipaMon may also lead to subjecMve or uninformed comments and potenMal discreditaMon. Many other models are currently being explored (6); incorporaMng technological innovaMons, including arMficial intelligence, might help create a modern, more efficient -and sustainable -peer-review ecosystem (7).One of the main concerns that we repeatedly hear from our academic colleagues is the lack of formal recogniMon or reward for their substanMal contribuMons to peer-review. While lisMng the hundreds of manuscripts and grants reviewed on plahorms like ORCID or Web of Science may showcase extensive contribuMons to the community, it sMll adds li=le value to academic careers. In response, some journals have introduced non-financial incenMves such as discounts on publicaMon fees, free access to journal's arMcles, conMnuing medical educaMon credits, or public acknowledgements.What if financial rewards were introduced, especially now that researchers are pushed to pay thousands of dollars for their manuscripts to be peer-reviewed and published open-access?The current system disproporMonately benefits publishers from a financial standpoint.RedirecMng a porMon of these funds back to individual researchers or -why not -universiMes would establish a more equitable model. This shic could not be only vital for the current peer-review system but also be very welcomed by the academic community, as it could help retain early career researchers, enhance job security, stability and saMsfacMon, and provide an addiMonal metric to support career advancement.To "quanMfy" reviewer acMviMes, establishing a global plahorm might be necessary, providing tools that evaluate quality and relevance of reviews based on factors such as quality, Mmeliness and impact, and offering publicly accessible metrics. Editors would play a central role in evaluaMng reviews, raMng them for thoroughness and acMonable insights. In other words, this would create a system that incenMvises and enhances the quality of reviews in a fairer and more sustainable manner. We believe the publishing industry has the resources and a sense of duty to support these iniMaMves, although the appointment of more editors would be required to fulfil this task. We should not forget that many journal editors receive only a modest sMpend or work voluntarily.EducaMonal acMviMes aimed at nurturing the next generaMon of reviewers and editors might also be construcMve and fulfilling. For example, a few years ago, the Journal of Cardiac Failure launched a Reviewer Mentorship Program, pairing junior mentees with senior mentors to guide them through the review process and provide direct feedback. The program also included monthly didacMc sessions and opportuniMes for parMcipants to a=end editorial board meeMngs. Outstanding reviewers were recognised with promoMons to the editorial board or opportuniMes to write editorials (8,9). Many scienMfic organisaMons and publishers are creang their own educaMonal iniMaMves (10).Reviewers, editors, and publishers bear great responsibility. Rigorous research and highquality peer reviews are both essenMal for pushing the boundaries of knowledge and