3
How has your perspective on peer review changed in the past five years?
Results
(210 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-287804It seems that some peer-reviewer are very sloppy and fast and do not take adequate time for a thorough review. I do not blame them because many academics are being asked on a weekly base now to peer-review and not everybody has the time to spend on this. Stratified and structured review formats might help, but constructive comments are invaluable.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-74194I've reviewed close to 300 papers. Community service peer review is a low bar. I shoehorn reviews into my schedule.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-738101Predatory journals etc.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-193986I am now an associated editor for a few journals and the situation seems not sustainable at all. Finding reviewers is becoming increasingly difficult, and sometimes you need to rely on low-quality high-quantity reviewers to get a review done.
- Other [please explain]user-194025The current review is broken!
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-948023Recently, I received numerous invites to peer review manuscripts, some of which fall outside my area of expertise.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-579540The load on scientists has become too high
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-606148I fear the current system is overwhelmed and collapsing under its own weight
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-426175The AI usage is proliferated despite all warnings. Earlier a new solution, a scientific computer code was considered as a novel scientific contribution. At present some technician with some well formulated questions can write sound codes.
- My views have not significantly changeduser-683654My perspective has not seriously changed.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-524666I have been asked to review too many papers of very low quality. I continue to review multiple papers, but turn down many times more
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-817094My main criticism of the current system is the quality of peer reviews. Errors in publications are becoming increasingly common because the reviewers are often not specialists in the subject matter.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-740158With a full time, I sometimes wonder if I should accept invitations to be a reviewer. Especifically, the workload I have. I often have to do review work after hours. But I do feel obligated to give back to the science community. Especially when I think about needing to submitbmy own work
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-75113As an English first language speaker, I am repeatedly told by reviewers that my manuscripts require language editing. This is of concern as the reviewers are not first language speakers as is evidenced by tgeir reports the reviewers are not evaluating science. Is this because they are unable to?
- My views have not significantly changeduser-489806There are reviewers who have no business reviewing. Providing vague, lazy, and pointless singular statements after having the article for a few days is pointless. Journals should retain these people on a list of "Do not contact."
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-214133The reviewer's motivations and quality are a lottery. Some reviewers are just looking for new citations. In other cases, the reviewers are not experts in the topic and are asking for non-suitable modifications.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-563401I get too many peer review invitations. Sometimes even declining them seems like a burden.
I accept a lot of invitations and it eats up all my time when i can finish my work or do sometime creative. - My views have not significantly changeduser-640046no comment needed
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-781308I have explained the reasons for it in my response to above questions.
- My views have not significantly changeduser-286232As already explained in previous section.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-774853Having played the role of an executive editor and the editor in chief of a journal, the apprciation of the process has changed.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-906051See abovve.
- My views have not significantly changeduser-491178Sometimes, manuscripts are sent to reviewers with no clue of the topic, despite their names are included in the publications
Arrogancy from the editors side is also another concern, thought they received positive comments from the peer reviewers, they are passing decision; daunting - Other [please explain]user-771708system is good but there are simply too many papers, often poor quality, to deal with
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-41956See my answer to Question 1.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-372627The number of reviews has increased significantly, making it increasingly difficult to find reviewers who commit ample time to peer review.
- I have become more positive about the current peer review systemuser-70793The process has been open-minded, welcoming new ideas. embracing technology to make the process faster.
- I have become more positive about the current peer review systemuser-230313See answer 1
- My views have not significantly changeduser-186224More and more journals are created, but the fixed researcher postions are not more
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-104740The time from submission to publication is ridiculous, and the number of requests for free work I get is also ridiculous.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-923069I don't like to review anymore
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-673903Peer review is great or terrible with little in between.
- I have become more positive about the current peer review systemuser-90744Considering the multiple reviews has undergone, I learn many things about the peer review process and becomes more positive with peer review process.
- I have become more positive about the current peer review systemuser-332316My perspective on peer review has become more positive over the past five years, especially as I’ve become more engaged in publishing myself. Initially, I saw peer review as a barrier slow, sometimes harsh, and occasionally inconsistent. But with time, I’ve come to appreciate its value in improving the quality of my work. The feedback I’ve received although not always easy to digest has almost always led to stronger, more impactful papers. I’ve also noticed efforts to make the process more transparent and supportive, which I think is encouraging. While there are still challenges, I now see peer review more as a collaborative process rather than just a gatekeeping mechanism
- I have become more positive about the current peer review systemuser-337244The current system is fine but it requires more focus on the publication quality and repeatability instead of charging handsome amounts for the open access or via APC. The journals should also consider to provide cost-free service for those authors who has no any support to publish their research work.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-863705The last 12 months the number of invitations was increased beyong reasonable numbers
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-751579I do not trust processes in journals where I cannot access the review and opinion of fellow reviewers. This is not a transparent and fair procedure.
- My views have not significantly changeduser-135268Not much has changed in the last five years, but we have the misfortune to come across a reviewer who uses artificial intelligence for peer reviews. I don't think much has changed, because the impact of AI has only just begun and it is only in the misfortune that it is felt. If you ask this question in five years' time, it is very likely that you will get a different answer.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-521833In some cases, editors rely on the opinions of reviewers who may not be experts in the specific field and whose assessments are based on general, unsupported statements rather than scientific evidence because the editors themselves are not experts. This is very common in the environmental science journals.
- I have become more positive about the current peer review systemuser-881641I have come to appreciate how peer review encourages collaboration and constructive feedback, helping to improve research quality. Seeing more transparency and accountability in the process has also made me more optimistic about its evolution.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-219698Bad unwanted comments by present reviewers pains me.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-441980Five years ago, the peer review system felt manageable.
- Fewer journals, fewer submissions, and review requests were occasional — it felt like a meaningful academic duty.
But now, things have changed drastically:- I receive 2–3 review requests almost every day, making it overwhelming to keep up.
- Most open access journals charge high APCs, and still expect free peer review labor.
- To make things worse, traditional journals are excruciatingly slow, often taking months to a year just to provide a first decision.
- Authors are pressured to go for faster, pay-to-publish models, but that raises concerns about equity and quality.
Overall, the system feels exploitative and unsustainable, especially as the volume of publications continues to rise. - Fewer journals, fewer submissions, and review requests were occasional — it felt like a meaningful academic duty.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-332757Many papers are submitted for publication before they are fully developed, due to the pressure scientists face to publish.
- My views have not significantly changeduser-82487I keep suggesting to the journals my views periodically
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-75410I have been an editor and it is hard to find reviewers and find the time to manage the reviews.
- I have become more critical of the current peer review systemuser-573537I also appreciate that the adherence to good methodology and research practice has become less and less frequent over time.
- I have become more positive about the current peer review systemuser-649468I get more exitance
- Other [please explain]user-25427Although scholarship and knowledge creation as a process should not be ideally affected by country of reviewers but shortage of reviewers in the western countries probably made more space for reviewers from developing countries to contribute to the review process.
- Other [please explain]user-650721Views not changed but I am seeing more sloppy articles in terms of writing and science being put forth for review which make me feel exasperated as a reviewer.