Forty!
That is the number of potential peer-reviewers I had to approach for a paper in a top mental health and addiction journal I edit – all to no avail.
As a relatively well-published early-career scholar who has peer-reviewed hundreds of papers and edited several journals for both corporate-run publications and university presses, let me be blunt: peer-review is severely broken; not a little bruised, but systematically shattered. The system is collapsing under its own contradictions; if we don’t act now, we risk letting it take scientific integrity down with it.
Peer-review in its current format is treated as academic charity work, something we academics “owe” to the field. Last year alone, I reviewed more than 15 papers, all for free, each taking at least three to four hours. Additionally, I declined more than 100 peer-review requests, some of which I would have liked to take part in. My colleagues across health and medicine tell similar stories; some have stopped accepting journal peer-reviews altogether. Some journals now take more than a year to publish papers while they await peer-reviews.
To be fair, this isn’t laziness, it’s exhaustion.
Overworked researchers, particularly early-career ones sprinting the academic rat race, are juggling developing new courses, teaching, sitting on various random and non-random committees, constantly writing grants and mentoring graduate students, all while maintaining a high level of “productivity” often measured by the number of papers published. When they are asked to donate hours scrutinizing papers for peer-review, bitterness grows.
Decent peer-review requires time, focus and expertise. But when you’re scrambling between obligations, corners get cut. One colleague recently admitted to skimming a paper’s methods section; another gave a quick “looks fine” after 10 minutes; new data shows that an increasing number of scholars are using Artificial Intelligence to produce peer-review reports. Indeed, most academics agree that peer-review quality has declined drastically in the past decade.
Publishing delays hurt researchers fighting for grants and tenure, particularly those early in their careers. The stakes, however, are higher than hurt egos or delayed promotions. When flawed studies slip through the cracks, public trust in science erodes, urgent findings (e.g., climate, pandemic or drug trials) get stuck in limbo, patients receive incorrect treatments, policies rely on shaky evidence and pseudoscience thrives.
What’s galling is that this free labour allows publishers to charge universities like mine six figures annually for subscription packages. It’s mind-blowing that these companies charge researchers to publish (often US$3,000+ per open-access paper) while also charging institutions to allow researchers to access pay-walled studies. Meanwhile, their Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) pocket salaries in the millions. For example, Erik Engstrom, the CEO of RELX, formerly known as Reed Elsevier, the parent company of Elsevier, has reportedly been paid £126 million since taking over RELX in November 2009.
Moreover, the global academic publishing industry generates more than US$25 billion in annual revenue, with major players such as Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis accounting for more than 50 per cent of the market and shocking profit margins. For example, Elsevier, with a net profit of approximately US$2.4 billion in 2023, has a profit margin of 38 per cent, which is higher than that of tech giants such as Apple, Google and Microsoft that year.
This isn’t capitalism. It’s tollbooth economics. Why should we put up with this cycle of abuse?
Compare that to other sectors of the withering publishing industry like newspapers and magazines that must cover costs for staff wages, research, fact-checking, printing and distribution. Academic journals bear none of these costs since research funds, usually from universities themselves, cover the salaries of researchers and project expenses. With digital access eliminating printing costs, the primary expense is now limited to article graphic design. Most concerning, taxpayers fund most research through grants (e.g., the U.S. National Institutes of Health alone spends nearly US$48 billion annually) yet with a few exceptions (e.g., open-access papers), publishers restrict access to these studies. Want to read the latest diabetes medication breakthrough? Pay US$50. This isn’t capitalism. It’s tollbooth economics. Why should we put up with this cycle of abuse?
We can still salvage peer-review but it will require upheaval.
First, if commercial publishers can spend billions on lobbyists and stock buybacks, they can pay reviewers. Even $200 per review (i.e., $50ish/per hour) would ease resentment and split the load across more scholars. This isn’t just about fairness; it’s about ensuring we have enough qualified reviewers to maintain scientific rigour. And what seems to be more of a joke than meaningful reform are peer-review credit systems that offer free access to journals for academics who already have free access through their universities that these same publishers already charge for subscriptions.
Second, journals should disclose reviewer identities, publish review comments and explain article rejections. This transparency is crucial for accountability and trust in the peer-review process. Few currently do this, but it would dramatically improve both review quality and public understanding of how science works.
Third, the promotion system within academic settings should move away from the over-emphasis on article publications as the primary metric of research productivity. Universities should recognize and reward peer-review contributions in tenure and promotion decisions as valuable professional service, ensuring this essential scholarly work is acknowledged rather than treated as invisible labour.
Lastly, exploring alternative peer-review models is long overdue: post-publication peer-review, in which papers are published first and reviewed openly afterward; collaborative review platforms where multiple experts contribute; and AI-assisted screening to handle initial quality checks while freeing human reviewers for more in-depth analysis.
If we are serious about the integrity of scientific research and our responsibility to the public that funds it, our patently flawed approach must be transformed.
Underappreciated, overworked and unacknowledged reviewers and editors deserve recognition, and the public deserves open access to rigorous science. If that means dismantling parts of the empire built by giant publishers, so be it. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to create a review structure that is transparent, equitable and ethically sound.
Peer-review may not be over, but the era of exploitative, opaque and corporatized gatekeeping should be. Science isn’t a luxury; it’s a public good. Let’s reclaim it.
it’s an important article. but I think an element it neglects to mention is exponential growth of journals (and articles) with no or limited growth of peers to do the reviewing. simple math says it is unsustainable
This certainly is a wake-up call I must say. Thank you for writing this piece. Your views align with what this author mentions in BMJ: “The work of patient and public reviewers should be funded”
Source: We need more patient and public reviews on research papers—and the resources to do so.
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2891
Thank you for this well written and necessary call for reform of a clearly broken process.
When a July 2021 BMJ opinion piece asks :’Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?’, the peer review process gets even more complicated and unfortunately unreliable
Not only is Fraud is rampant, but conflict of interests between pharma and scientific journals are glaring. We have also long seen censoring of conflicting findings, (despite their credibility) but the brazen collusion of journals with politics was particularly exposed during the pandemic
Compelled speech was catapulted , and was the final nail in the Coffin that breed irreversible harms to trust in “ science “ ….. in many circles “ science “ it is now a mocked word that was abused by nanny state authoritarians to gain compliance and control
So indeed, quality peer reviewers and researchers have it tough, especially in an age where speaking the truth, exposing bias, and producing evidence that counters approved narratives can get you black balled.
So, I’m sorry to say that although many publications are incredibly important and credible and no doubt involve tremendous effort on behalf of upstanding researchers and peer reviewers, the rug has been pulled out from under the peer review process by overseers with questionable integrity and less than honorable intentions
I was asked recently to review a pair of papers which should never have gotten past the journal’s internal review process. To send such papers out for peer review is abusive to volunteer peer reviewers, in my opinion.