Scientific publishing relies on peer review as the mechanism that maintains trust in what we publish. When we read a journal article, we assume experts have rigorously scrutinised it before publication. This crucial system is currently under severe strain.
Authors
- Hamid R. Jamali
Professor, School of Information and Communication Studies, Charles Sturt University
- Edward Luca
Course Director and Senior Lecturer, Information Studies, Charles Sturt University
- Simon Wakeling
Lecturer, School of Information Studies, Charles Sturt University
We conducted a comprehensive study of Australian academic journals and their editors - surveying 139 editors and interviewing 27 . The picture is concerning.
Finding qualified peer reviewers has become one of the most significant challenges editors face. When peer review cannot be secured adequately, both the long-term viability of journals and research integrity suffer. The voluntary system underpinning academic trust is breaking down.
The scale of the crisis
More than half of the editors we surveyed (55%) rated finding reviewers as a significant or very significant challenge.
Some described having to send out 30 or more invitations to secure just two reviewers. One called the process "ridiculous". Another expressed frustration with authors who had recently published in their journal yet "repeatedly refuse to review" for it.
There are also reviewers who say yes and then never do the review, which delays the process further.
The consequences are significant. Some journals now reject manuscripts outright when they cannot find suitable reviewers, despite the work being in scope and potentially valuable.
Publishing articles takes longer and quality research can go unpublished because it cannot be properly peer reviewed. This is a systemic crisis.
Why academics decline review invitations
Peer review remains entirely voluntary. Academics review manuscripts without payment, formal recognition, or acknowledgement in their workload.
Researchers face pressure to increase the quantity, quality and impact of their research. At the same time, universities are actively discouraging the activities that sustain scholarly publishing, with many editors reporting that their universities have removed editorial and peer review roles from workload models entirely.
As a consequence of workload intensification, scholars protect their time more carefully. Post-COVID shifts in work-life balance have also made academics more selective about how they allocate effort. At the same time, submission volumes continue to grow: more papers to review, fewer willing reviewers, besides the fact that not every author is a qualified reviewer.
There is also a lack of reciprocity. Authors who have just published often decline to review. Some editors suggested publishing in a journal should come with an obligation to review for it.
Current strategies fall short
Editors, of course, have developed workarounds. These include using databases to identify reviewers, running reviewer training workshops to mentor emerging scholars, mining reference lists, and relying more heavily on editorial boards.
They also report rejecting more papers at the initial screening stage, before sending them out for peer review, to reduce the number of manuscripts that need reviewing. But this increases the time required of editors.
An emerging concern raised by some editors is the appearance of reviews generated by artificial intelligence (AI). These reviews can be vague, confusing, and fail to improve manuscripts . This worsens the crisis. Peer review is supposed to be conducted by peers after all.
Systemic change is essential
Short-term strategies won't solve this crisis.
Some proposed solutions include paying reviewers or introducing mandatory review requirements for authors to review an equal number of articles to those they publish. But these are not easy to implement.
Peer review is so integral to the scholarly system that research would grind to a halt without it.
Yet it remains invisible in how universities and research bodies measure success in the current metric-driven culture.
The core of the problem, as one editor put it, is that "the extrinsic or intrinsic benefits are just not as strong as they used to be". Therefore, it needs to be better recognised and incentivised by universities and other stakeholders by actions such as including it in workload models, highlighting it in promotion criteria and so on.
Why this matters
This crisis affects all of us who rely on published research. It threatens the viability of journals, particularly local or independent journals not owned by big publishers. But fundamentally, it jeopardises the integrity of the scientific record itself.
We have built a publishing system dependent entirely on voluntary labour, especially for local and independent journals. Without significant change - without formal recognition, support, and genuine incentives - the shortage of reviewers will deepen. Publication schedules will suffer. The diversity of publishing outlets will diminish. Trust in peer review will erode.
The solution requires action from multiple stakeholders including universities, funders and research assessment bodies.
Scholarly communities must understand that sustaining peer review is a shared responsibility. The voluntary system underpinning academic trust has been taken for granted too long. It's time to start properly valuing it.
Edward Luca is an Associate Editor of the Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association (JALIA) and a Director of the Aurora Foundation Ltd.
Hamid R. Jamali and Simon Wakeling do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
