The hidden cost of peer review: a system under strain
As the landscape of scholarly communication evolves, so must the structures that sustain it, writes Gali Halevi
In recent years, the volume of peer review requests circulating within the scholarly community has grown noticeably (Pellicori P, et. al, 2025). What was once an occasional professional contribution has, for many, become a regular and sometimes overwhelming demand. While being invited to review is often seen as a mark of trust and recognition, the practical reality is more complex. A thoughtful peer review requires careful reading, critical reflection, and constructive feedback. This is not a quick task. It can take hours, and in some cases, several days to do properly.
This growing demand raises broader questions about how peer review functions within today’s academic publishing landscape, particularly in relation to Article Processing Charges, or APCs. The intention here is not to criticise the system, but to reflect on how time, expertise, and value are currently balanced within it.
The growing burden on reviewers
Peer review remains one of the cornerstones of scholarly communication. It plays a critical role in improving research quality, identifying errors, strengthening arguments, and maintaining academic standards. Most reviewers approach this responsibility with care and professionalism. Yet the work itself is largely invisible. It is typically unpaid, often unrecognised, and increasingly time-intensive.
For those outside traditional academic roles, this dynamic can be especially challenging. Independent researchers, consultants, and others working beyond institutional structures do not have peer review formally built into their workload. Instead, it must be managed alongside client commitments, project deadlines, and other professional responsibilities. Accepting a review often involves a real trade-off, where time spent reviewing is time not spent on paid or primary work.
At the same time, there is a growing sense of reviewer fatigue across the research community (Phuljhele S, 2024). As submission volumes increase, the number of available reviewers has not necessarily expanded at the same rate. This imbalance places pressure on a relatively small pool of contributors, many of whom receive frequent requests with tight deadlines. Over time, this can lead to fatigue, reduced availability, and in some cases, declining willingness to participate (Beecher, K., & Wang, J. 2025).
Can AI ease the pressure?
Within this context, the emergence of artificial intelligence tools has added a new layer to the conversation (https://ioppublishing.org/ai-and-peer-review-2025-discussion . These tools can assist with certain aspects of the review process, such as summarising manuscripts or identifying structural issues. However, their use is often viewed with caution. Peer review relies heavily on human judgment, subject expertise, and the ability to interpret nuance. There is a concern that over-reliance on AI could weaken the depth and quality of reviews. At the same time, it is understandable why some reviewers might feel tempted to use such tools when faced with increasing time pressures. This tension highlights a broader challenge of maintaining quality while managing growing demands.
Time to go beyond goodwill?
Alongside these developments, the financial model of academic publishing has evolved. Open access has significantly improved the accessibility of research, allowing broader audiences to engage with scholarly work. However, it has also introduced APCs as a central component of the publishing ecosystem. In many cases, these charges can be substantial, supporting editorial workflows, infrastructure, and dissemination.
This raises an important question. If there is funding within the system through APCs, is there room to reconsider how peer review is valued?
Traditionally, peer review has been understood as a form of academic service, something contributed to the community rather than compensated financially. This principle continues to hold importance and reflects a shared commitment to advancing knowledge. However, as expectations increase and workloads grow, it is worth considering whether the current model remains sustainable for all participants.
This does not necessarily imply that peer review should become a fully paid or transactional activity. Such a shift could introduce new challenges, including concerns about bias or inequity across disciplines and regions. The independence and integrity of the review process must remain central. However, there may be space to explore alternative forms of recognition that go beyond goodwill alone.
Rethinking recognition and reward
Possible approaches could include modest honoraria, discounts on APCs, or more visible acknowledgment of reviewer contributions (https://www.kwglobal.com/blog/pay-peer-reviewers/). In some cases, simply making this work more transparent and valued within the academic ecosystem could help reinforce its importance. Recognition does not have to be purely financial to be meaningful.
Another aspect worth considering is how review requests are distributed. Some individuals receive significantly more invitations than others, often due to their visibility or established reputation within a field. Expanding and diversifying the reviewer pool could help distribute the workload more evenly. Encouraging early-career researchers to participate in peer review, with appropriate guidance and mentorship, is one potential way to address this imbalance.
At a broader level, the issue is not a lack of willingness to contribute. Many researchers value peer review and see it as an integral part of scholarly engagement. The challenge lies in the limits of time and capacity. When requests become too frequent, even the most committed contributors must begin to decline, which can slow the process for authors and journals alike.
Building a more sustainable system
This suggests a need to reflect on how the system can evolve. The current model has long depended on goodwill, and in many respects, it has functioned effectively. However, the context has changed. Submission volumes are higher, expectations are greater, and the demands on researchers’ time are more complex.
The question, then, is not whether peer review should change entirely, but how it can be better supported. This may involve rethinking recognition, improving how responsibilities are shared, or being more mindful about the volume and frequency of requests as well as compensation. It may also require a more open conversation among publishers, editors, and the research community about what is realistic and sustainable.
There is unlikely to be a single solution that fits all disciplines or contexts. Different fields have different norms, resources, and expectations. However, acknowledging the pressures within the current system is an important starting point.
Peer review is, at its core, a collective effort. It depends on individuals contributing their time and expertise to improve the work of others. Ensuring that this contribution remains sustainable is in the interest of the entire research ecosystem. Authors, publishers, institutions, and readers all benefit from a robust and thoughtful review process. Maintaining that quality requires not only commitment but also support. As the landscape of scholarly communication continues to evolve, so too must the structures that sustain it.
Gali Halevi is a scientific consultant at Scimago Research Group
References
Beecher, K., & Wang, J. (2025). Peer reviewer fatigue, or peer reviewer refusal? Accountability in Research, 32(5), 838–844. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2463977
Pellicori P, Douxfils J, Mentz RJ, Cleland JGF, Beaudart C. The Growing Demand for Peer Review: Current Challenges and Potential Reforms. Br J Biomed Sci. 2025 Jul 14;82:14930. doi: 10.3389/bjbs.2025.14930. PMID: 40727548; PMCID: PMC12301256.
Phuljhele S. Reviewer fatigue is real. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2024 Nov 1;72(Suppl 5):S719-S720. doi: 10.4103/IJO.IJO_2465_24. Epub 2024 Oct 25. PMID: 39449527; PMCID: PMC11670836.