Peer review in times of blatant capitalism

"Money, get away. You get a good job with more pay and you're O.K." (Pink Floyd, 1973)

Peer review in scientific publication is in crisis. We are all aware of the fact that securing reviews for any paper is becoming harder every day. This, coupled with an increase in papers being produced and submitted for publication and how much published papers matter for individual and institutional success, has led to an array of ideas to sustain and improve the review process that seems irreplaceable.  

What exactly does peer review mean and imply for us scientist. A natural and necessary outcome of any scientific endeavor is communicating findings to our community. We share what has been discovered to contribute to our general knowledge, to solve specific problems or help develop new tools, all ultimately aimed at improving our quality of life. Since Francis Bacon’s times (ref.1), consensus emerged on the need that experimental findings were to be validate by others as parte of as an emerging scientific method.

Since, the publication of the results of research in specialized journals rapidly evolved as the way in which such communication mostly occurs. Papers reporting the results of a scientist’s work are submitted to a journal of choice- usually one that is popular and widely read among those working in the same field-which then chooses to publish it (or not). Selection criteria for publication are founded on the quality of the research and in the early days, by page printing capacity. This has headed to presenting papers that are drafted succinctly and with given sections to allow for a straightforward yet deep analysis. For instance, what are the questions asked, how they have been tested and how the results forward our knowledge usually conform the introduction, methods and results and discussion sections of any paper.

To validate a papers quality, all submissions are read by an editor (generally an experienced peer) who they will invite several (usually between 1 and 3) subject-matter specialized colleagues to look more carefully at the robustness of the ideas and the methods applied. Despite the rather limitless space that online publication now offers, quality remains a golden standard for many journals and most papers submitted get rejected because they do not make the cut. Many journals exhibit rejection rates as a metric of performance, but generally, less is spoken about the trajectory of rejected paper and what this means for us all.

Because rejection probability is high and there is a chance that a given rejection was based on a misunderstanding on one’s work, submitting to another next preferred journals is inevitable. As authors, because we believe in our own work and have invested effort in producing it, we want to see it published. A published work has become a key indicator of our work performance, globally, as it is the product of research. Moreover, there is the added pressure from employers to get your work out there and the explicit recognition of our work by our colleagues which often translates into career progress.

Most of us with a few years in academia, no matter how experienced and published we are, have had papers rejected. Then, after improving them following the editors’ and reviewers’ suggestions, we submit once again, to another journal.  Simple math will show where the problem is: we need 1-2 editors plus, say 2-3 reviewers looking at each paper on every submission.  And it is not unusual to see a paper submitted to 2 or more journals before it gets accepted in what looks more like a trial an error course than a thought-out process, where a journal targeted because of who reads it becomes less of an issue than actual publication. 

Because reviewing is voluntary work that adds to an already heavy charged agenda most in academia hold, declining to review is growing. It is not unusual to see tens of invitations going out to colleagues who are also research scientists with their own production of papers, before a couple accept to read and offer their views on a paper. There is no apparent ‘evolutionary stable strategy’ here, as ‘cheaters’-that is, authors who submit papers for review and declines to review themselves, are not penalized by the system. More journals, more submissions and less time and commitment for editing and reviewing is in simple words at the core of what has been termed the ‘peer-review crisis’.

In the early days, a given number of journals mostly spearheaded by scientific societies, where the venues in which papers got published. Then, scientists were not that many and offering to review others work was a way to keep informed and up to date in your field.  After WWII and not without the intervention of Robert Maxwell’s savvy entrepreneurship, the number of journals exploded, transforming academic publishing into a highly lucrative corporate enterprise which exacerbates the problem (ref.2). Nowadays there are many journals among which only a small fraction remains driven by learned societies. Many more journals, with different acceptance criteria and standards, offer more opportunities for submission and re-submission. Again, because peer-review remains the procedure through which a paper is validated, no matter who runs the journal, the need for reviewers grows necessarily at a faster rate than paper production.

If the problem is evident, solutions remain obscure. Several ideas have been suggested to prevent the whole system from collapsing. Some have proposed (and in some cases deployed) a system of monetary compensation which has even been considered “fair” (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-04027-4) and others, a credit system through which you earn credits by reviewing that can be used when submitting (ref.3 and references therein). Curiously, opinion papers have been published (and peer reviewed I assume) presenting these ideas, based on some analysis of the current situation. But, aside from the fact that the practicalities of each system are complex and require extra work and changes to a system we are used to, the fundamental problem remains unsolved.

Any proposed system that considered the need of some form or reward is based on view that mirrors itself on any other demand and supply economic model. The fact that private publishers have entered the system, even managing society journals, and that these companies can make notable profits seems to warrant this perspective even more (but this sis completely different story). However, I would argue that there are other ways of looking at peer review. Here are my two cents. 

First, consider that most of us do get rewarded as much as this is seen as part of our jobs in academia. Many of us get a salary for teaching and doing research and our employers expect us to this as best as we can. In doing so, we are very much aware of the need to keep up to date with the science, and we do this by reading the literature, attending conferences and collaborating with others. Intuitively then, there is no better way to do this than by reading work from our peers that is still ‘warm’ and even in the cooking stage. This can inspire ideas, foment collaboration and improve our work. Knowledge on the state of the art of what are working on, is paramount to the advancement of science. 

Then, there is reciprocal altruism. A remarkable behaviour that evolved (if not only) in humans as help to others irrespective of kinship, indicates that such help now may bring future fitness gains later. If we consider that others review our submissions and we want them to do it well and fast, then it’s up to us to do the same. Of course, cheaters may do well in such a model, but if we invest more effort in educating that this is wrong (as for many other house rules) and less to worry about them, this works. This is how it all started before we fell prey of an overabundance of journals.

Finally, we need to fix the venomous association between the number of papers produced and where they are published with career advancement and institutional success. We even see some places where authors get paid per publication. We all know (and it has been proven by several groundbreaking discoveries done by ‘low’ productivity scientists) that more papers do not make for a better scientist. If so, why do we still see it like this? Again, in seeking much needed quantitative and objective means of recognizing others work, we fall in the sad rut of comparisons, rewards and competition. We need to dissolve this association by breaking up the need for providing rewards and incentives for everything we do, to reduce the unhealthy pressure to publish (and as a side effect may also reduce the traction for more journals and higher publication fees). I believe this will make everyone’s life easier, select against free riders and re-install a more virtuous and functional peer-review system.

References:

1. Bacon, Francis. The New Atlantis. Edited by Susan Bruce, Oxford University Press, 1999.

2. Fredriksson, E. H. (Ed.). (2001). A century of science publishing. IOS Press

3. Moles, A.; R. Bonduriansky; S. Bonser; D. Falster; S. Nakagawa; N. Andrew, & M. Lagisz, A transparent universal credit system to incentivize peer review, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 123 (19) e2506681123, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2506681123 (2026).