Do you believe the current journal peer review system is sustainable given increasing submission volumes?

Answer Explanations

• Unsure (Please explain)

  user-287804
  It is increasingly harder to find experts among academics to be willing to peer review manuscripts because of the sheer volume of journals and the time it takes to adequately judge the manuscript research methodologies and findings.  The lack of willing peer reviewers results in wait times after manuscript submission of sometimes 6 months or longer. This is not acceptable. However, I strongly feel that manuscripts should undergo expert screening before publication. Having said that I also do not advice to publish pre-peer reviewed articles. 
• No

  user-74194
  I think it will be increasingly difficult to find qualified reviewers.
• No

  user-738101
  Too many papers and far too few dedicated reviewers willing to give away their time for free when publishers are making massive profits. 
• No

  user-193986
  Peer review is becoming a joke. On some platforms, automatic tools do everything by themselves almost without need for supervision. More manual platforms, on the other hand, require too much work due to publication volumes.
• No

  user-194025
  The whole peer review system is broken! Honesty, ethics, and morality have disappeared from academia!  
• Unsure (Please explain)

  user-504085
  it may also result in poor reviewing standards
• No

  user-646537
  There are so many submissions and so many other responsibilities for academics, it is difficult to make time for unpaid work.
• Unsure (Please explain)

  user-637800
  Proper review of a paper takes quite some time, and already there are many competing priorities for one's time. Its altruistic because the peer reviewer is not acknowledged at publication. A few in between is okay. When they are so many, challenges can arise.
• No

  user-948023
  Publishers should consider giving out incentives to peer reviewers who are dedicating their time and effort to review other works. Incentives could be in the form of free subscription to the publisher for a certain period of time or discounts for open-access publishing.
• No

  user-579540
  All the load is on scientists' shoulders. We produce science, write and format the papers, even pay for open access, briefly we do all the work. With the increasing number of publications, it is not sustainable. A new system that pays reviewers should be implemented. Maybe there should be paud professional reviewers who mainly review papers. 
• No

  user-530506
  our journal often needs to ask >20 potential reviewers to get 2 who agree - and then they may or may not actually follow through
• No

  user-606148
  The work load on editors and reviewers is unsustainable with the increase in submissions.  With GPT - assisted writing, and with increased incidence of data fraud, I think we will need to find some kind of tiered screening system so that the human review for importance and substance of the papers becomes the final step in the multi-tiered review process.  
• No

  user-426175
  The problem is: who guards the guards? There are famous scientists, big names, who never accept invitation for a review, but publish regularly, sometimes 50-100 papers per year. This should not be allowed. After some experience, say after ten years in science, all publication should be preceded at least two (or even more) competent reviews. This should be a prerequisite for publication. If somebody suggests their own papers in a report, s/he should be excluded from publication for a given period. Not for one peculiar journal, but for all core journals of its field, independently from the publisher. Desk reject should be forbidden and many more.
• No

  user-969930
  Review process on a minimum honorarium should be promoting for better engagement from higher number of prospective reviewers.
• Yes

  user-683654
  Ut is sustainable but at a point some token has to be paid to reviewers to make it more sustainable than the present.
• No

  user-524666
   There are simply too many journals and papers. It is difficult to separate the proper journals from those predatory or of very poor quality
• No

  user-817094
  The system is collapsing not only due to the volume of submissions but also because peer reviews are free despite the high publication costs. This leads to two major problems: (1) Fewer researchers with proven academic expertise are willing to work for free for journals that offer no benefits, resulting in lower-quality reviews; (2) publication costs create a significant gap between countries that can afford them and those that cannot.
  
  

  
  
  
• No

  user-740158
  It takes a lot of time and work, with seemingly no reward for the reviewer.
• No

  user-75113
  There is a need to ensure that peers doing reviewing commit time to make the process sustainable!
• Yes

  user-320728
  What could be other posibilities?
• Yes

  user-489806
  I have seen no trends that would impact the current way of doing things.
• Yes

  user-719898
  Improved the reveiw
• Unsure (Please explain)

  user-834781
  Peer review is necessary for good science, but doing that for the sake of science without tangible incentives is not likely to resonate with all people in science. Peer review tasks are now openly documented but not counted in career enhancement. Unless person does it as a moral duty for contributing to science, even a well meaning person may not be able to prioritise on review work due to demanding job schedules.
• No

  user-214133
  In some study fields, the experts are limited in promoting peer review by non-experts or junior researchers. 
• No

  user-753919
  Too more reviews to take, there would be some revenue for the job
• No

  user-640046
  I receive over 300 review requests per year, of which I can complete 30-40 per year. It is too much strain on a small pool of reviewers, while some authors seem unwilling to reciprocate in giving their time to constructive feedback. The volume of submissions coming from China is much too high, and the system may collapse under the weight. AI is another incoming challenge, as I have reviewed submissions that use extraordinary language clearly generated by AI, from authors I know have poor written language skills.
• No

  user-781308
  Journals contact peer-review experts voluntarily. However, it is not always easy to find experts in the desired subject area, which can lead to delays in receiving comments from the reviewers.
  The open-access journals should devise different approaches to impanel subject experts so that the peer review process is completed quickly.
• Yes

  user-286232
  With increasing population and demand it has to be sustainable. More importantly new domains of AI, ML, Climate change and resulting hydrology besides environmental conseuences are some hot topics. Their impact on agriculture demands innovative research. Applied research needs special emphasis. Therefore peer review system is going to be sustainable in the days ahead for publication and dissimination on the ground.
• No

  user-774853
  The pressure to submit grants and publish articles and teach makes it impossible to review, understandably so, as reviewers are hard to find now. Also, as a free service without payments, with increasing submissions, it also becomes a touch too onerous.
• No

  user-906051
  Volumes are just too high, and very little incentives for reviewers.
• No

  user-965103
  it isn't even sustainable with current submission volumes
• No

  user-491178
  I believe the number of editors are limited despite increase in submission. The platform for enrolling new editors is of limited 
• No

  user-771708
  reviewers are overwhelmed and poorly rewarded
• No

  user-220337
  The peer review system is overflown with submissions. Sometimes, due to lack of reviewer's a good manuscript could be overlooked by the editor. 
• No

  user-41956
  The increase in the number of journals and publishing institutions using a common platform that shares reviewers has led to me receiving numerous requests to review submissions weekly. Many of these requests are clearly out of my area of expertise. AI has made the process of accepting a manuscript for review a challenge, as the abstract often fails to reflect the paper accurately or is so generic as to be of little value. "Me too" or "Us again" publications, for example, where the study is a repeat of a previous publication, but with different material, are extremely difficult to evaluate and highly vulnerable to AI and sophisticated graphic manipulation.
• No

  user-723868
  Scientific publishing has massive profit margins. Peer reviewers should be paid for their time and expertise.
• No

  user-372627
  I believe the review process should provide some compensation to the reviewer; in short, there should be a fee for reviewing. Publishers that cannot sustain this economic model will fade away, but this could be beneficial for reducing predatory publishing.
• No

  user-15180
  As a research scientist, I receive invitations for reviewing papers on a daily basis, that I cannot accept due to my ongoing tasks. In the lists of my tasks, there is the responsibilities towards my institution, the projects management and eventual requests of scientific opinions from agencies. All these tasks are duly payed, so the reviewer role is placed on the end of to do list. I see the same approach by my colleagues, and conversely, we face an exponential increase of journals requesting reviewers.
• No

  user-153919
  I think the pool of peer reviewers is dwindling although the pool of researchers has increased over the period. Most are of the view that publishers profit massively from their voluntary work. Additionally, researchers have become overburdened with work which may include teaching, grant writing, research performance, manuscript development etc and adding peer reviewing journal articles may be deemed as extra burden.
• Unsure (Please explain)

  user-708877
  Based on my personal experience many journals are sending the manuscripts randomly to the reviewers which makes it so difficult to obtain a proper and unbiased peer review
• Yes

  user-70793
  As much as submission volumes are increasing, the consumers are also increasing. As the population grows, so is the population in academia. individuals seeking higher education are increasing each day; therefore peer review system must adjust to the new reality.
• Yes

  user-920460
  The sustainability of the current journal peer review system is increasingly being challenged by the growing volume of submissions. Many journals face delays in securing qualified reviewers, leading to longer turnaround times and reviewer fatigue. While traditional peer review remains a cornerstone of academic publishing, alternative models such as open peer review, post-publication review, and AI-assisted screening are being explored to alleviate the burden. To ensure long-term sustainability, the system may need reforms, including better incentives for reviewers, broader reviewer pools, and more efficient editorial processes.
  
  
• Yes

  user-230313
  Peer review has been successful to ensure quality it is even more important now
• No

  user-372787
  Faculty and researchers are strapped for time, and I have read many very messy reviews that seem to have been done too quickly to be thorough and thoughtful.
• No

  user-158318
  Highly specialized work that is not compensated.
• No

  user-186224
  People have no time to carefully review the manuscripts, and also have no time to read all relevant papers
• No

  user-104740
  It's not just about submission volumes, it's about free work on the side of experts for multi-million dollar publishing companies. 
• No

  user-923069
  Elevated costs
• No

  user-767467
  Peer review journals are rarely read unless open source due to the increase in pay per article model. Increasing submission volumes allow lower quality articles to be published and are not worth paying for.
• No

  user-673903
  Sometimes I think manuscripts are submitted to get reviewed with the intent of submitting elsewhere once they get an outside critique.
• Yes

  user-90744
  The current peer review process is strigent and effective in increasing the submission. Additionally if journal follows double blind will be helpful to get more suggestion if required on the original submission. 
• No

  user-332316
   I believe the current peer review system is under significant strain due to the exponential increase in manuscript submissions. While the foundational principles of peer review are rigorous, independent evaluation remain critical to scientific integrity, the process is becoming less sustainable in its current form. Reviewers are increasingly overwhelmed, and this can compromise both the timeliness and quality of reviews. To sustain the system, we need adaptive solutions such as incentivizing reviewers, adopting open and collaborative peer review models, leveraging AI-assisted tools for initial screening, and promoting reviewer training programs. A hybrid model that balances traditional rigor with innovative approaches may be the most viable path forward 
• No

  user-740731
   Open access paid publication models create a conflict: scientists freely review publications they must then pay to publish. 
• Yes

  user-337244
  Peer reviewing provide an excellent way for the recognition of research work where numerous scientist or senior researchers help to validate the process of research methodology, results, outcomes for future directions. 
• No

  user-103012
  Especially, when compared the volume of submissions and emerging journals to the number of experts that are leaving academia (the field that contributes mostly to peer review exercise). Moreover, reviewers are getting a too little motivation from the Science community.
• No

  user-863705
  There are too many submissions, and the invitations send by editors are too many. Thus, a scientist recieve too many invitations for review and reject the majority of them. 
• No

  user-543438
  Reviewers have limited time and only so many people offer to review. This limits the amount of articles that can be peer reviewed adequately. 
• Unsure (Please explain)

  user-372463
  Without recognizing adeguate reward to Expert reviewers quality of review process Will decline, depending on inexperienced reviewers and AI 
• No

  user-751579
  Proper, constructive and responsible peer review, along with members of scientific community that practice, apply and believe in the actual value and meaning of peer review, cannot keep up neither with the increased volume of submitted papers, nor with the uprising new open access journals.
• No

  user-381005
  Don’t think volunteers can keep up high standards when publication volumes increase.
• Yes

  user-168069
  There is no real alternative 
• Yes

  user-135268
  The technology developing with artificial intelligence enables the emergence of many different branches of science and the training of new scientists. The volume of publications increasing with AI may be gigantic, but the development and emergence of new experts will also accelerate. This can only change when journals start to formally use tested AIs for peer review, which are capable of scientific evaluation according to their own standards. AI is evolving rapidly, but training and model building require expertise. I do not foresee a time in the near future when publishers will provide such experts for journals.
  
  
• Unsure (Please explain)

  user-521833
  We need empirical data to find out if the journals are struggling with the rise in submissions
• Yes

  user-881641
   The current journal peer review system remains sustainable due to widespread digital infrastructure and global reviewer networks that scale with submission growth. Additionally, innovations like editorial triage, AI-assisted screening, and open peer review models help manage increasing volumes efficiently. 
• No

  user-218578
  There are too many review requests, and it is impossible to accept all or most of them.
• Yes

  user-219698
  Strong peer review by experienced senior professors and scientists and not by  junior asst professrs, research scholars and young scientists without experience. This will avoid bogus publications.
• No

  user-328598
  FINDING OF APPROPRIATE AND NOT OVERLOADED REVIEWERS SHOULD BE DONE WITH AN AI-ENABLED SEARCH SYSTEM
• Yes

  user-743316
  There are increasing number of scholars hence the increased submissions. These scholars could widen the pool of peer reviewers.
• No

  user-441980
  1. Time-Consuming Process:
     Peer review timelines are notoriously long, often taking months to a year or more. With increasing submission volumes, reviewers are overburdened, causing further delays and a backlog that discourages timely dissemination of knowledge.
     
     
  2. High Article Processing Charges (APCs):
     Open access models have shifted costs onto authors, with APCs often reaching thousands of dollars. This makes publication inaccessible for researchers without funding support, especially from underfunded institutions or developing countries.
     
     
  3. Journals Profit While Reviewers Work for Free:
     Publishers charge high fees (APCs or subscriptions), yet the core labor — peer review — is done unpaid by researchers. This raises ethical concerns, especially when profit-driven publishers benefit from free academic labor while controlling access to research.
     
     

  
  
• No

  user-552
  A large number of journals are emerging every day and the number of articles sent to these journals is quite high. Even if the number of reviews is sufficient, their reliability is quite low. Most researchers think that if they write an article, there are many journals and it must be published in one journal.
• No

  user-526097
  Months of waiting for a rejection is a waste of time that would not be tolerated in any other profession.
• No

  user-332757
   It is impossible to keep up, given the enormous volume of papers being submitted. Moreover, we scientists are already overloaded with work and cannot manage the pressure of both conducting competitive research and reviewing so many papers 
• Unsure (Please explain)

  user-43093
  It depends on a reviewer. Not all reviewers are conscientious.
• Unsure (Please explain)

  user-951213
  in my opinion, the current journal peer review system does not guarantee scientific quality or adequate dissemination of the results. however, in the editorial boards of the established journals working people who have a lot of connections and, therefore, influence in the community.   
• Yes

  user-82487
  There is no other visible alternative. It has been in force for many decades and 80% authors consider that the quality of their ms has been improved through peer reviewing
• No

  user-75410
  The workload from researchers is high and there is few time left to review papers.
• No

  user-907622
  It is asking too much from the faculty. The number of review requests has skyrocketed, and you also question why I should give my time, especially when the predatory journals have mushroomed. 
• Yes

  user-573537
  My perception is that the much increased load of submissions should be addressed with a deeper editorial pre-selection, and that would lead to better chances of getting sufficient and opportune review, a stage that would only be achieved by a minority of submissions. Even big-name journals, as those in the Frontiers series, request revisions of extremely low-quality submitted manuscripts, which could perhaps been swiftly rejected after a due editorial pre-review. 
• Yes

  user-649468
  YES
• No

  user-650721
  Get bombarded with requests. But also quality of submissions worsening. I take time to review and while I want to help, the number of reviews I am asked to do steadily increases and is becoming burdensome.
• No

  user-869302
  As scientific journals proliferate, it becomes more difficult to discern quality high quality journals from low quality journals. Publications that are otherwise low quality but manage to garner attention by creating headlines in mass media outlets push high quality journals to keep up by accepting less rigorous, but attention-grabbing conclusions. This situation makes it harder for peer reviewers to maintain standards in the face of an ever expanding body of work.
• Yes

  user-41442
   

  There’s a growing consensus among researchers, editors, and publishers that the current journal peer review system is experiencing significant strain, particularly due to increasing submission volumes. Here’s a breakdown of the sustainability issues and what's being discussed around them: 
  
  
• No

  user-255680
  From my perspective, the increasing volume of submissions is closely linked with the lack of reproducibility of findings from peer-reviewed literature. Poorly designed and insufficiently detailed studies do not get screened from the published literature, and the large volume of questionable publications dilute the actual good science in the literature.