The unseen work that helps peer reviewers make a difference

Kim Eggleton explores how pre-review screening protects reviewer time, strengthens integrity and improves scholarly publishing

During Peer Review Week, we celebrate and discuss the vital role that peer review plays in safeguarding and strengthening the scholarly record.

Reviewers contribute their expertise, critical thinking and subject knowledge to ensure that published research is rigorous and trustworthy. An important part of this conversation is the growing pressure on the peer review system, driven by rising research output and increasingly complex research integrity challenges.

As demands on reviewers continue to increase, it is more important than ever that they can focus their time and expertise on the things that only they can provide.

Why pre-review screening has become essential

Concerns about research integrity are not new, but today’s publishing environment is fundamentally different from that of a decade ago. Research output continues to grow rapidly, while organised forms of misconduct, including paper mills, fake identities, manipulated images and citation gaming, have become more prevalent, more sophisticated and harder to detect.

At the same time, the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has coincided with a further increase in manuscript submissions, placing additional pressure on a publishing system in which reviewer capacity has not kept pace with demand. As a result, editors are sending significantly more review invitations to secure expert assessments, with the average number of invitations required for a completed review increasing from 2.3 in 2018 to 4.5 today.

We see this growing pressure reflected in our 2024 reviewer survey, which showed that 50% of respondents say that the number of peer review requests they receive has increased over the past three years. Together, these trends put pressure on the publishing ecosystem and highlight the need for tools and support that sit around the peer review process.

Reviewers are experts in science, not forensic investigators

Peer review is designed to assess research for its novelty, rigour and significance. Reviewers help determine how research fits within the wider literature, whether conclusions are supported by the evidence and what contribution the work makes to the field.

To make the best use of reviewer expertise, reviewers should be able to focus on these scientific questions rather than spending time investigating concerns that can best be identified through specialist tools and thorough analysis. Reviewers should not be expected to detect every instance of authorship fraud, citation manipulation or image tampering. That is why extensive checks must be done before papers land on a reviewer’s desk. 

How publishers can help

Over the years, publishers have developed an increasingly sophisticated range of editorial and research integrity checks. Before a manuscript reaches peer review, publishers may:

• Assess whether the manuscript is suitable for the journal.
• Screen for plagiarism, duplicate submission, and problematic content such as tortured phrases.
• Verify author identities, affiliations and unusual authorship patterns.
• Review references and publication metadata.
• Check for image manipulation and duplication.
• Investigate potential indicators of paper mills or other forms of systematic misconduct.

Publishers increasingly combine technology with specialist research integrity expertise to support this work. At IOP Publishing we use tools such as Alchemist Review to help identify quality, fit and reference concerns, ImageTwin to detect duplicated and manipulated images, and the STM Integrity Hub supports with the identification of patterns across publishers.

Importantly, these tools do not replace human judgement, nor do they diminish the role of peer review. They help surface potential concerns so that trained teams can investigate them before reviewers invest their time in assessing a manuscript. The result is a more effective peer review process.

The purpose of these checks is not simply to identify misconduct but also to improve both author and reviewer experience. Authors want decisions quickly, and to know where they stand.

While nobody wants a rejection, getting one promptly is important. Reviewers want to be able to know the manuscript they are assessing has already been checked, and want clear guidance on what they need to assess and what they don’t. By addressing concerns early and filtering out unsuitable submissions, publishers help ensure that reviewers can focus on the scientific questions that only subject experts can answer. This becomes increasingly important as submission volumes continue to grow. Protecting reviewer time is ultimately about protecting the quality of peer review itself. When reviewers can focus their expertise where it adds the greatest value, the entire research ecosystem benefits.

Invisible but powerful

These checks are vital, no one disputes that. But they’re also unseen – which means reviewers and readers can assume they never happened. There is a strong industry movement towards Trust Markers, with a drive for journals to be more transparent about the checks that have been done on each manuscript. This not only gives readers some reassurance about the rigour of the publication process, but also provides us, as publishers, the opportunity to demonstrate where we add considerable value. Increasingly we are talking about a world where a publishers’ role is not dissemination but curation – and these checks are the tools of our new trade. 

Supporting reviewers extends beyond pre-review checks

At IOP Publishing, we invest in reviewer development through our free training and certification programme, which helps reviewers build confidence, strengthen their skills and promote greater consistency in peer review. The programme also explains the checks that take place before a manuscript reaches review, helping reviewers better understand their role within the wider publishing process. We consistently hear from reviewers that this course is both needed and appreciated, with many noting reviewing is just something you’re “expected to know how to do”, but never taught. To the same end, we also provide feedback on review reports, helping reviewers develop as reviewers and supporting continuous improvement across the peer review community. 

Looking ahead

As research integrity challenges continue to evolve, protecting the scholarly record will require a collective effort. Publishers, institutions, funders, researchers and governments all have a role to play in creating a healthier and more resilient research ecosystem. Peer review remains at the heart of that system. Its effectiveness will increasingly depend not only on the expertise of reviewers, but also on how well the wider ecosystem supports them. The work that happens before peer review is one part of that support, helping reviewers focus on what they do best: applying their expertise, judgement and scientific insight to improve research and advance knowledge.

Kim Eggleton is Head of Peer Review and Research Integrity, IOP Publishing