When something’s free, there’s no guarantee of quality—but when it’s paid for, there’s an expectation of quality. This is true in many areas of life. Using a free app to track your workouts might give you basic features, while a paid version gets you personalized regimens, meal plans, and coaching support so you can hit your fitness goals efficiently.
Mariela Mihaylova
Yet, the scientific community continues to rely on free peer review. This system is increasingly under strain as greater demand for peer review and increasingly overtaxed reviewers lead some to ask:
- What can be done to fix the system?
- Why should early career researchers, like me, carry on the volunteering tradition
- Should review compensation and recognition finally be mainstreamed?
Now that I’ve started as a peer reviewer, my thoughts have grown stronger on this issue and I’d like to share my perspective.
The early career researcher’s dilemma
Doing peer review gives researchers valuable opportunities for professional growth, but it comes with challenges.
Building a reputation in academia
Peer review is an important part of your development as a researcher. It helps you impart your learnings to improve the work you’re reviewing, and it makes you a key participant in the scientific community. It also helps you gain visibility among your peers, which can unlock new opportunities.
Performing peer review lets you engage with cutting-edge research, take on new challenges, stay current with trends in the field, and refine your critical thinking and analytical skills. Positive reviews and recognition from respected journals or platforms can also enhance your credibility, setting you up for greater academic success.
So, when I was invited to do peer review, I was really looking forward to the challenge. I always liked writing and was always the one asked to review colleagues’ essays or papers in school. I felt like it would be a natural fit.
Take a peer review training course here on Reviewer Credits
Time management and professional growth
One of the main reasons deterring young researchers from participating in peer review is the time component. Peer review requires thoughtful analysis and detailed feedback, which can be time-consuming. For many researchers, especially those in highly competitive fields, dedicating time to peer review may feel like an added burden, yet another unpaid task that takes up a lot of time.
Some researchers also may not necessarily feel ready to critically appraise others’ work and are hesitant to even try. Feelings of doubt or unpreparedness cloud their vision and they don’t take that step. For example, I didn’t feel like I was ready to do peer review until the last year of my PhD, after I had amassed quality research skills and in-depth knowledge in areas like meta-analyses.
This means that many areas are missing key contributions, which is why finding ways to streamline the process, offer flexible review timelines, and provide appropriate training and recognition for reviewers could help ease this challenge.
Experiences and perspectives
I always wanted to be involved in peer review. But, like many researchers, the prospect of spending countless hours digging into others’ work with no compensation did not sound like an enticing long-term plan for me.
My journey into peer review
I started my peer review journey in late 2024. I was at the tail end of my PhD, so, naturally, I was excited and honored to give my two cents on someone else’s work. I already had quite a bit of review experience from editing manuscripts and through my professional endeavors, so I was confident I could deliver valuable insights to improve the paper and contribute to the field.
Months later, however, I still hadn’t heard any updates on the paper’s publication status and had no idea if my review was even helpful. The authors didn’t reach out to clarify anything and the editor didn’t confirm whether more review was needed. There was no closure and, ironically, no sense of contribution.
It left me feeling disconnected from the process I’d worked so hard to be a part of.
Traditional perspective: Volunteer work
Traditionally, peer review has always been an unpaid cornerstone of scientific progress. Researchers volunteer their time to evaluate others’ work in the name of improving science. This creates a spirit of collaboration within the scientific community and a sense of knowledge-sharing. But, these contributions are almost never rewarded in a tangible way.
During my Master’s and PhD, I watched fellow researchers stay late at the office to carefully review manuscripts after a busy day in the lab, only for them to never hear back again. I also saw these colleagues frustrated by getting reviews that were rushed, delayed, or unconstructive, resulting in their projects getting delayed or put on hold (which then also leads to research waste). The experience left many feeling like peer review was a thankless task, a system that takes more than it gives.
This method may have worked in the past, when the scientific community was rather small. However, since the 1900s, the number of scientific articles has doubled every 10–15 years (up 8–9% since 1980, with more than 2 million papers published in 2023). Notably, areas like cognitive sciences and AI have shown explosive growth over the last 20 years.
Meanwhile, only about 10% of researchers are responsible for over 50% of peer reviews. And, an estimated 13.7 million reviews are carried out per year. Hours and hours of review are also wasted, as around 60% of all manuscripts are rejected and at least 2–3 reviewers are needed for each of these.
This means the burden of reviewing is disproportionately placed on a small subset of experts, which is unsustainable, especially as more and more research continues to come out.
Where are all the reviewers going to come from?
Traditional perspective: Long wait times
Moreover, the peer review process is notorious for delays. In areas like social sciences or education, it can take up to 13 weeks to get the first response from the journal (i.e., acceptance, rejection, pending revisions). Factor in the time it would take researchers to implement potential changes–say another few months or so–and then the time it would take for the work to undergo another review round and ultimately get accepted, you’re looking at up to two years to get a paper out. Researchers are often reluctant to put their work onto preprint platforms.
This slows down the dissemination of critical findings and creates a lag, which is detrimental to areas where timely access to information is crucial like medicine.
Academic publishers reap significant profits from subscription fees, paywalls and Open Access publishing charges (APCs), while relying on the unpaid labor of reviewers. In fact, the total academic publishing industry generates over 19 billion in revenue annually. One paper can cost a few hundred dollars for a publisher to peer review and publish while charging authors $1,500 or more for open access.
Because of all these issues, many question the sustainability, fairness, and efficiency of this “tradition.” Or, whether it adequately values the time and expertise of reviewers.
The academic publishing landscape is changing rapidly
Digital advances today spur the growth of new platforms that are challenging the traditional model of peer review.
Digital transformation in scholarly communication
Technology has significantly altered the peer review process, making it faster, more transparent, and more accessible. Online submission platforms help editors track the progress of peer review.
Some platforms, like Clarivate’s Reviewer Recognition service, give recognition to researchers for peer review. When a reviewer completes a review for a participating journal, Clarivate verifies the details and automatically adds them to the reviewer’s Web of Science Researcher Profile. This allows reviewers to showcase their contributions, promoting transparency and recognition in the peer review process.
Meanwhile, here on Reviewer Credits, reviewers like me can make themselves available and get recognition for our work.
Certain journals offer open peer review, where reviewers’ identities and comments are publicly shared, fostering greater accountability; however, this approach can also lead to biased or censored feedback if reviewers fear conflict or judgment, or overly favorable or critical reviews influenced by personal relationships with the author.
Emerging platforms: Beyond cash compensation
Other, cutting-edge platforms, offer compensation-based options. For instance, platforms like Axios Review give feedback-based compensation, though amounts are undisclosed. Reviewer Credits provides a credit system that rewards reviewers with credits for services like conference fees or academic courses. Web of Science Researcher Profiles recognizes reviewers with non-monetary rewards, boosting academic credibility.
Companies like Research Square (for preprints) offer a $50 honorarium for Research Quality Evaluations, while journals like Collabra: Psychology use a community fund to pay reviewers. Meanwhile, journals like the American Economic Review and The Lancet, offer small honorariums or publication fee discounts.
Balancing tradition and innovation
Some worry that a compensated form of peer review can threaten scientific integrity, while others are ready to embrace the change.
Preserving the integrity of peer review
Researchers often worry that a paid peer review system could compromise the objectivity and impartiality of reviews, as financial incentives may influence their judgments. If money is the main driving force behind a publication, there’s a general concern that low-quality, misleading, or downright false research will be published, leading to predatory articles.
All these concerns are valid, but a paid peer review system can also bring considerable benefits if implemented thoughtfully. Compensation can be a powerful, positive motivator to take the process seriously, potentially attracting a broader pool of qualified reviewers. This would only lead to a more diversified reviewer pool, unlocking new perspectives and directions.
To maintain objectivity and quality, clear guidelines and ethical standards can ensure that payment does not compromise impartiality. Double-anonymous (double-blind) review processes can further mitigate bias by focusing solely on the merits of the research.
Additionally, incorporating training programs for reviewers and regular quality assessments of reviews can uphold high standards. This will make sure reviewers are not participating in peer review for the sake of earning some extra pocket cash. It will also help train up-and-coming and early career researchers (ECRs). (Just getting started in peer review? Read my tips in this article.)
In fact, a Wiley survey of over 3,000 reviewers found that peer reviewers liked the idea of being rewarded with things like discounts on open access fees, free access to research, free color printing for their papers, and education credits. This shows that researchers are warming up to the idea of being recognized for their peer review work through practical ways. Could a full-fledged payment system be next?
Embracing change: The case for recognition
If you’re not ready for paid peer review just yet, providing recognition for review contribution is the bare minimum. Non-monetary rewards, such as recognition in researcher profiles, certificates, or access to academic resources, can incentivize reviewers without introducing financial gains that could potentially bias their judgment.
The Wiley survey found that forms of acknowledgement through public recognition, awards, and certificates were highly valued because it makes them feel rewarded for their service. Feedback on their reviews’ usefulness and notification of the final editorial decisions were other key factors encouraging reviewers to work with journals again.
In my experience, you catch more flies with honey. Reviewers are far more likely to continue contributing their time and expertise when they feel valued and engaged in the process. Small gestures like a follow-up on how someone’s feedback improved your manuscript can make all the difference.
A vision for the future of peer review
I’d like to say that the case for compensated or recognition-based peer review is closed. But there’s still a lot to be done to improve the system.
Toward a more equitable system
A sustainable peer review ecosystem should combine recognition, fairness, and efficiency, balancing monetary and non-monetary rewards like certifications, discounts, and professional development.
I like to envision a peer review future where we harness both the old traditions and new innovations. One where publishers and companies continuously develop innovative tools to streamline the process, while placing greater emphasis on manuscript and research quality.
The possibilities are endless but this could look like having a platform where AI tools assist with routine tasks like basic grammar checks or ensuring compliance with guidelines like APA. Or, that statistical calculations are correct to prevent questionable research practices or publishing results just for the “headlines.” Once the initial scan is complete, the paper would be “tagged” as ready for peer review, at which point a human reviewer would go in and focus on providing a detailed evaluation. The reviewer would be compensated in some way for their time.
The world is changing, and the academic world is no exception. We need to embrace change by harnessing new technology to streamline processes, all while advocating for ourselves and enhancing our careers.
Sign up for Reviewer Credits for FREE
About the author
Mariela Mihaylova is a communications consultant in the private sector and is pursuing a PhD in cognitive sciences at the University of Geneva and UniDistance Suisse (Switzerland). Her research interests are memory, learning, meta-analyses, and open science.