#Nature #NewsFeature The peer-review crisis: how to fix an overloaded system https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02457-2
Journals and funders are trying to boost the speed and effectiveness of review processes that are under strain.
With the number of scholarly papers rising each year, publishers and editors complain that it’s getting harder to get everything reviewed. And some funding bodies, such as ESO, are struggling to find reviewers.
Peer review has become too unreliable.
Many experiments by funders and journals are aimed at incentivizing researchers to do more reviews… The ultimate incentive might be financial. A debate about paying reviewers has swung to and fro for years.
The journal Biology Open paid reviewers £220 (US$295) per review, and — unlike Critical Care Medicine — told them it expected a first response within four days, to allow editors to decide on manuscript acceptance or rejection within a week of submission.
If it is scalable, then we need to figure out how to finance it. We would obviously like to avoid putting the burden on authors by increasing the APCs [article processing charges] to adjust some of the costs, but these are the discussions we’re having.