What is the Peer Review? Who Is a Reviewer In a Journal and What Are the Benefits of Being One?

In the scientific world, peer review is the backbone of research credibility. Behind every published paper is a team of anonymous experts who have critically assessed the work—these individuals are known as reviewers. If you are a researcher or student, understanding who reviewers are and how becoming one can benefit your career is essential.

This article explores the role of a reviewer, their responsibilities, and the advantages of contributing to the peer-review process.

 

Sections:

1. What is Peer Review?
2. Who Is a Reviewer?
3. What Is a Reviewer’s Main Responsibility?
4. Types of Peer Review, Evolving Models of Peer Review
5. Recognizing and Reducing Bias in Peer Review
6. How Reviewers Conclude Their Evaluation
7. Who Can Become a Reviewer in a Journal?
8. Benefits of Being a Journal Reviewer
9. Co-Reviewing and Mentorship in Peer Review
10. What the Data Says: Insights from Peer Review Surveys
11. The Growing Challenge of Reviewer Fatigue and Overload
12. Peer Review: Quality Control or Gatekeeping?
13. The Emerging Role of AI in Peer Review
14. Key Ethical Guidelines and Frameworks Every Reviewer Should Know
15. How to Get Started
16. Conclusion

---

 

What Is Peer Review?

Peer review is the process through which scientific manuscripts are evaluated by independent experts in the same field before being accepted for publication in a journal. It serves as a vital checkpoint for maintaining the integrity, credibility, and scientific rigor of academic research.

At its core, peer review functions as a form of quality control. When a researcher submits a paper to a journal, the editor sends it to one or more reviewers—subject-matter experts—who assess the work for accuracy, originality, ethical soundness, and relevance. Their comments and recommendations help the editor decide whether to accept the paper, request revisions, or reject it outright.

There are several key goals of peer review:

• Ensure Scientific Validity: Reviewers check that the study’s design, methods, and conclusions are sound and appropriately justified.
• Promote Ethical Standards: The process screens for ethical compliance, such as proper consent, animal welfare, and data transparency.
• Enhance Clarity and Communication: Reviewers offer suggestions to improve the manuscript’s clarity, coherence, and structure.
• Filter for Relevance and Novelty: Manuscripts should advance knowledge, present new insights, or apply known methods in innovative ways.

Importantly, peer review is not one-size-fits-all. It varies by discipline and journal. Some journals use single-blind review (where reviewers know the authors’ identities but not vice versa), others use double-blind review (where both parties are anonymous), and some adopt open peer review, where reviewer identities and comments are made public.

Despite its imperfections—including potential bias, reviewer fatigue, and inconsistency—peer review remains a foundational mechanism for scholarly communication. It is a collaborative process that, when done ethically and constructively, helps authors improve their work and ensures that published research meets the standards of the scientific community.

For anyone involved in research, understanding peer review isn’t optional—it’s essential. Whether you’re submitting a manuscript or reviewing one, knowing how the process works allows you to engage more meaningfully and contribute to a healthier, more transparent research ecosystem.

History of The Peer Review

Peer review, as we know it today, is a relatively recent yet vital development in the history of science. While the concept of scholarly critique dates back centuries, formal peer review only became a standard feature of academic publishing in the 20th century.

The earliest recorded instances of scholarly evaluation can be traced to 9th-century Islamic physicians who reviewed one another’s work before publication. In the Western tradition, the Royal Society of London—founded in 1660—played a foundational role. Its journal Philosophical Transactions, first published in 1665, began informally involving expert opinions to vet submissions. However, this process was largely editorial and lacked today’s structured peer evaluation.

It wasn’t until after World War II that peer review became formalized and widely adopted, driven by the surge in research funding, increasing specialization, and the need for quality control in a rapidly expanding scientific literature. By the 1970s, most major scientific journals had adopted formal peer review as a prerequisite for publication.

Disciplinary Differences of Peer Review

Despite its widespread adoption, peer review is not uniform across all academic disciplines. The approach and expectations vary significantly:

• Natural and Biomedical Sciences: These fields typically follow double-blind or single-blind peer review. Reviewers assess methodological rigor, statistical validity, and ethical compliance. The review process is often rigorous and fast-paced due to the competitive, rapidly evolving nature of the field.
• Social Sciences and Psychology: Reviewers here may focus more on theoretical framing, construct validity, and qualitative methods. Peer review often involves longer timelines and can be more interpretive due to the diverse methodologies and epistemologies in the field.
• Humanities: Peer review tends to be more open-ended and interpretative, with emphasis on originality of thought, argumentation, and contextual depth rather than experimental validation. Reviews may be longer and more essay-like, and publication timelines can be significantly slower.
• Engineering and Computer Science: In these disciplines, conference proceedings may carry more weight than journal publications. Peer review is often rapid, and there may be a stronger emphasis on technical feasibility, innovation, and real-world application.
  

Understanding these historical and disciplinary nuances helps aspiring reviewers recognize that peer review is not monolithic. It is a dynamic system shaped by the values, goals, and cultures of each academic field. As a reviewer, being aware of these differences can enhance your ability to contribute meaningfully and ethically across diverse scholarly landscapes.

Who Is a Reviewer?

A reviewer is a subject-matter expert who evaluates the quality, accuracy, and relevance of a manuscript submitted to a scientific journal. Reviewers are usually researchers, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, or professors with experience in a specific field.

While many journals prefer experienced researchers, early-career scholars and advanced graduate students are increasingly encouraged to participate—especially under mentorship or as co-reviewers with their advisors.

 

What is a reviewer’s main responsibility?

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific research. Their primary responsibility is to evaluate a manuscript’s scientific merit, ensuring that only rigorous, ethical, and meaningful work is published. The review process is both analytical and constructive—it’s not just about pointing out flaws, but about helping authors improve their work.

Below are the core responsibilities of a reviewer:

• Assess Scientific Validity

One of the most fundamental duties of a reviewer is to determine whether the science is sound. This involves evaluating:

• Research design: Is the study design appropriate for answering the research question?
• Methodology: Were the methods applied correctly and in detail sufficient for replication?
• Data analysis: Were statistical tools used appropriately? Are the results interpreted accurately?
• Conclusions: Are the conclusions drawn justified by the data?

A reviewer should spot red flags such as overgeneralized findings, logical inconsistencies, or unsupported claims.

• Critique Clarity, Organization, and Presentation

Scientific ideas must be communicated clearly to be understood. Reviewers assess:

• Structure: Is the manuscript logically organized (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion)?
• Writing quality: Is the language clear, concise, and free of jargon or ambiguity?
• Figures and tables: Do they enhance understanding? Are they properly labeled and referenced?
• References: Are they up-to-date, relevant, and accurately cited?

If sections are confusing, redundant, or poorly explained, reviewers should suggest how to improve them.

• Evaluate Originality and Contribution

Reviewers must determine whether the manuscript offers new knowledge, perspectives, or findings that add value to the existing literature. Questions to consider include:

• Is the research question novel or merely a repetition of existing work?
• Does the study offer innovative methods, theories, or applications?
• How significant is the contribution to the field?

Originality doesn’t always mean groundbreaking—it can also refer to applying known methods in new ways or to different populations or settings.

• Review Ethical Compliance and Transparency

Reviewers are also responsible for checking whether ethical standards were upheld. This includes:

• Confirmation that human or animal studies received ethical approval.
• Verification that informed consent was obtained (if applicable).
• Checking for any potential conflicts of interest.
• Ensuring data transparency—are datasets, code, or materials available as promised?

While reviewers don’t usually verify documentation directly, they can flag concerns for editors to follow up on.

• Provide Constructive Feedback

One of the most valuable contributions reviewers make is their feedback. This should be:

• Specific: Point to exact sections or issues.
• Balanced: Highlight both strengths and weaknesses.
• Actionable: Suggest clear ways to improve the manuscript.

Feedback should aim to help the author refine their work, not discourage or criticize them personally.

 

• Optional but Important: Commenting on Journal Fit

While not always required, reviewers can also comment on whether the manuscript aligns with the scope and audience of the journal. For example, a technically strong paper may still be rejected if it’s not suitable for that publication.

 

Types of Peer Review, Evolving Models of Peer Review: From Blind to Open and Beyond

While traditional peer review has long been a cornerstone of academic publishing, the process itself is evolving. Journals and platforms now employ a range of peer review models to address concerns around bias, transparency, and speed. Understanding these models helps reviewers adapt to diverse editorial practices and expectations.

• Single-Blind Peer Review

In this most common traditional model:

• Reviewers know the authors’ identities, but authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript.
• This aims to protect reviewers from retaliation and encourage honest critique.

Criticism: Knowing the author’s identity can introduce bias, particularly related to institutional prestige, geographic location, or gender.

• Double-Blind Peer Review

Here:

• Neither reviewers nor authors know each other’s identities.
• This model seeks to reduce bias further and ensure impartial assessment.

Challenges: True anonymity is hard to guarantee, especially in niche fields or when preprints are shared prior to submission.

• Open Peer Review

Open peer review refers to a set of practices where one or more elements of the review process are transparent:

• Reviewer names may be disclosed to authors (and sometimes publicly).
• Review reports may be published alongside the article.
• Authors may respond publicly to reviewer comments.

Examples: Journals like BMJ Open and PeerJ employ some form of open review.

Benefits:

• Promotes accountability and civility.
• Provides educational value by sharing reviewer insights.

Limitations:

• May discourage candid feedback, especially from junior reviewers critiquing senior researchers.

• Transparent Peer Review

This is a hybrid model gaining popularity. It maintains anonymous reviewers but publishes their reports with the final article—offering transparency without risking reviewer exposure.

• eLife, F1000Research, and many BMC journals use this model.
• Often includes a timeline of revisions, editor comments, and author rebuttals.

Advantages:

• Enhances trust and learning by showing how the manuscript improved.
• Encourages constructive, thoughtful feedback.

• Preprint + Post-Publication Peer Review

In this model, research is first shared as a preprint (before formal peer review), and then evaluated publicly or semi-formally afterward. Review may be:

• Conducted by journals after submission (e.g., bioRxiv + journal-integrated workflows),
• Or community-led (e.g., PREreview, Review Commons, Hypothesis annotations).

Strengths:

• Accelerates knowledge sharing.
• Promotes broader, more diverse input on research.

Concerns:

• Quality control depends on community engagement and trust.
• Requires digital literacy and institutional support.

Why It Matters for Reviewers

Understanding different review models helps reviewers:

• Adjust tone and detail based on transparency level.
• Recognize ethical responsibilities tied to anonymity or openness.
• Participate confidently in newer systems, like co-reviewing on preprints, where mentorship and feedback are collaborative and public.

As science continues to evolve, so will peer review. Reviewers who understand these models are better prepared to contribute ethically and meaningfully across traditional and emerging publishing landscapes.

Recognizing and Reducing Bias in Peer Review

Despite its central role in ensuring research quality, peer review is not immune to bias. Studies have shown that unconscious (and sometimes conscious) biases can influence how reviewers evaluate manuscripts—particularly regarding author gender, institutional affiliation, and geographic location.

• Gender Bias

Multiple studies have identified disparities in how manuscripts authored by women are treated during the peer review process. For example female-authored papers may be evaluated more harshly, particularly in male-dominated fields. Double-blind peer review can help mitigate this bias, but it’s not foolproof. Also women may receive fewer invitations to review despite equivalent qualifications.

 

A 2021 study in eLife found that male reviewers were more likely to recommend rejection of manuscripts when the first or last author was a woman—especially in single-blind review settings.

• Institutional Bias

Reviewers may unintentionally favor authors from prestigious institutions over those from lesser-known or non-Western universities. Manuscripts from elite universities may be assumed to have higher quality or impact, regardless of actual content.

• This “prestige bias” may affect both acceptance rates and the tone of reviewer feedback.
• Some journals attempt to counteract this by using double-blind review or removing affiliations during initial review stages.

• Geographic and Language Bias

Authors from non-English-speaking countries or regions with fewer research resources often face additional hurdles:

• Manuscripts may be criticized for language proficiency rather than scientific merit.
• Some reviewers may be unfamiliar with region-specific data or public health issues and misinterpret the manuscript’s significance.

A Nature study (2015) noted that authors from low- and middle-income countries had significantly lower acceptance rates in high-impact journals—likely due, in part, to systemic geographic biases.

What Reviewers Can Do

As a reviewer, being conscious of potential bias is critical to upholding the fairness and integrity of peer review. Here are some strategies to help reduce it:

• Focus on content, not credentials: Evaluate the science, not the institution or author name.
• Reflect on assumptions: Ask yourself whether a criticism would apply if the manuscript came from a different country or a well-known lab.
• Provide specific, constructive feedback: Avoid vague or dismissive comments, especially around writing style or perceived “impact.”
• Support inclusive science: Recognize the value of diverse research topics, methodologies, and perspectives.

By recognizing and addressing bias, reviewers contribute to a more equitable publishing ecosystem—one where high-quality research can thrive regardless of the author’s background.

How Reviewers Conclude Their Evaluation?

At the end of the review process, a reviewer is expected to submit a structured report to the journal editor. This final section plays a crucial role in guiding the editorial decision. A comprehensive review typically includes several components:

• Summary of the Article (Optional but Helpful)

A reviewer may begin by summarizing the manuscript in their own words. This brief overview demonstrates their understanding of the paper and helps editors quickly grasp the study’s scope. For example, the reviewer might outline the research question, methodology, and key findings in two to three sentences.

• Strengths of the Article (Optional but Encouraged)

Reviewers are encouraged to highlight the strengths of the manuscript. This not only provides balanced feedback but also affirms the author’s efforts. Strengths may include originality, methodological rigor, relevance to the field, clear writing, or appropriate data analysis.

• Major and Minor Feedback

This section forms the core of the reviewer’s evaluation. Comments are typically categorized as major or minor revisions:

Major Feedback

Major concerns are substantive issues that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. These may involve:

• Incomplete or flawed methodology.
• Missing or unclear statistical analyses.
• Insufficient explanation of results.
• Lack of ethical approval or unclear ethical compliance.

Constructive feedback is essential—reviewers are encouraged to not only identify the problems but also suggest specific ways the authors can resolve them.

Minor Feedback

Minor concerns are smaller issues that do not undermine the validity of the study but should still be corrected to improve the overall quality of the manuscript. These might include:

• Grammatical or typographical errors.
• Inconsistencies in figures or tables.
• Ambiguous wording or unclear phrasing.
• Reference formatting issues.

Even minor feedback should be specific and actionable to support the authors in strengthening their work.

• Final Recommendation

After completing their evaluation, the reviewer provides an overall recommendation to the editor. The standard options include:

• Accept (rare on first submission): The manuscript is ready for publication with no required changes.
• Accept with Minor Revisions: The paper is well-prepared and only requires minor edits or clarifications. No re-review is usually necessary.
• Accept with Major Revisions (often referred to as “Revise and Resubmit”): The manuscript has potential but requires significant modifications before it can be accepted. A second round of peer review is typically expected.
• Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication due to fundamental flaws in design, analysis, interpretation, or journal fit.

Some reviewers may also include a confidence level with their recommendation (e.g., high, moderate, low), particularly in borderline cases, if the journal permits.

By structuring their review in this way, reviewers ensure their feedback is not only rigorous and objective but also helpful and respectful. This approach supports both editors in making informed decisions and authors in improving the quality of their work.

 

Structured Review Forms

While the format of peer reviews varies by journal, many now use structured reviewer forms to ensure thorough, consistent, and objective evaluations. These templates guide reviewers through key areas of critique and help editors make more informed decisions.

Some journals ask reviewers to provide:

• Ratings on a numerical scale (e.g., 1–5 for novelty, rigor, clarity),
• Binary decisions (e.g., meets criteria: Yes/No),
• Checklists for compliance with ethical, statistical, or formatting guidelines.

Why Structured Forms Matter

• They reduce reviewer bias by focusing attention on predefined criteria.
• They speed up the review process by clarifying expectations.
• They guide new reviewers through best practices for thorough and constructive feedback.

If you’re new to reviewing, ask for a copy of the journal’s reviewer form before accepting an invitation—it will help you deliver a well-structured and useful review.

Who Can Become a Reviewer in a Journal?

If you are:

• A graduate student with strong knowledge in your field,
• A postdoc or early-career researcher looking to contribute to your community,
• An experienced researcher wanting to stay current,

—you are eligible to become a reviewer.

Journals often invite reviewers based on previous publications, conference presentations, or through referrals. Many platforms also allow researchers to register as potential reviewers and build their profiles.

Benefits of Being a Journal Reviewer

Peer review is not only a cornerstone of scientific publishing but also a valuable professional activity with multiple personal and academic rewards. While it is often unpaid, the intellectual and career benefits of reviewing can be substantial—especially for early-career researchers and students who are building their academic identity.

Here’s a deeper look at the many benefits of becoming a peer reviewer:

• Stay Up to Date with the Latest Research

Reviewers are often the first to see emerging research—before it reaches the public domain. This privileged early access allows them to:

• Stay current with the newest theories, methodologies, and experimental findings in their field.
• Anticipate trends and shifts in scientific focus.
• Incorporate up-to-date insights into their own research, proposals, or teaching.

For graduate students and postdocs, this is an excellent way to remain connected to the forefront of scientific discourse, even outside of their own lab work.

• Sharpen Critical Thinking and Analytical Skills

Reviewing trains researchers to look at science more critically and precisely. A good reviewer must:

• Evaluate study design, hypothesis logic, and statistical methods.
• Identify strengths and weaknesses in how results are interpreted.
• Detect flaws in logic, ethics, or writing clarity.

These same skills carry over to the reviewer’s own manuscripts. Researchers who review regularly tend to write stronger papers, avoid common pitfalls, and think more strategically about their work.

• Build Academic and Professional Reputation

Serving as a reviewer demonstrates that a researcher is recognized as a trusted expert in their field. This credibility can lead to:

• Invitations to review for high-impact journals or serve on editorial boards.
• Greater visibility in academic circles and increased networking opportunities.
• Opportunities to collaborate with authors, editors, or other reviewers.

For early-career researchers, this can also be a stepping stone to becoming an associate editor or guest editor—roles that further enhance academic standing.

• Strengthen Your CV and Academic Profile

Reviewer roles are a meaningful form of academic service and are increasingly recognized in:

• Fellowship and grant applications.
• Postdoctoral or faculty job applications.
• Annual performance reviews and promotion evaluations.

Reviewers can list their contributions on CVs, LinkedIn, ORCID, or Publons (now integrated with Web of Science), where many journals allow verified records of peer review activity.

Example: “Peer reviewer for BMJ Open, PLOS ONE, and Conduct Science Journal (2022–Present)”

• Give Back and Contribute to Science

Peer review is a vital community service in academia. It plays a major role in:

• Upholding research integrity.
• Improving the quality and rigor of published studies.
• Supporting fellow researchers by offering constructive feedback that enhances their work.

By participating, reviewers help create a more ethical, transparent, and collaborative research environment—especially important in times when misinformation or weak science can have real-world consequences.

• Receive Recognition and Tangible Rewards

Many journals now offer formal recognition for reviewers’ time and effort. This may include:

• Certificates or letters of appreciation—useful for portfolios or visa applications.
• Public acknowledgments—such as annual reviewer lists or social media shout-outs.
• Discounts or incentives—some journals offer discounts on article processing fees, authorship incentives, or opportunities for co-authorship in special issues.

To ensure reviewer work counts, researchers should document their peer reviewing efforts in annual activity reports, CVs, and promotion dossiers. This may include:

• A list of journals reviewed for,
• Number of reviews performed per year,
• Recognition awards (e.g., “Outstanding Reviewer”),
• Invitations to editorial boards or special issues.

Platforms like Publons, ORCID, and ReviewerCredits also help reviewers document their contributions and receive digital recognition.

 

The Emergence of Reviewer Metrics

Just as citation counts and h-indexes have quantified scholarly influence, reviewer metrics are now emerging as indicators of academic service and expertise. Several platforms track and verify peer review contributions:

• Publons (now part of Web of Science): Allows researchers to create a verified record of their peer reviews, including the number of reviews completed, for which journals, and even open reviews when permitted.
• ORCID Integration: Many journals now allow peer review activity to be linked to ORCID profiles, helping reviewers consolidate their scholarly contributions in one place.
• Reviewer recognition platforms (e.g., ReviewerCredits, Clarivate): Some services assign scores or badges for review frequency, quality, or timeliness.

These tools help researchers demonstrate impact beyond publications, especially important for early-career academics and those applying for grants or leadership positions.

Integration into Open Science Portfolios

Open science emphasizes transparency, accessibility, and collaboration. Peer review is increasingly recognized as an integral part of this ecosystem. Open peer review models—where reviewer comments and identities are published alongside the article—are being adopted by several major publishers (e.g., eLife, F1000Research, PeerJ).

Reviewing can be integrated into an open science portfolio in the following ways:

• Signed reviews: Reviewers can choose to make their identity public and receive credit for their intellectual contributions.
• Public review reports: Sharing constructive critiques adds to scientific discourse and can serve as a form of scholarly output.
• Citable reviews: Some platforms assign DOIs to review reports, allowing them to be cited in grant applications or CVs.

Additionally, contributing to open review processes, serving on preprint review platforms (like PREreview or Review Commons), or mentoring others in ethical peer review practices all contribute to a visible, responsible, and collaborative research identity.

Co-Reviewing and Mentorship in Peer Review

Peer review is a critical step in maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific publishing. While traditionally the role of a reviewer is assigned to established researchers, co-reviewing — where a senior reviewer involves a trainee or junior colleague in the review process — has become an increasingly recognized and valuable practice. Co-reviewing offers a unique mentorship opportunity that benefits both the mentor and the mentee, but it also raises important ethical considerations.

What Is Co-Reviewing?

Co-reviewing occurs when an experienced reviewer collaborates with a less experienced researcher, such as a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow, to evaluate a manuscript. This collaborative approach provides trainees with hands-on experience in critical evaluation, constructive critique, and scientific communication — skills essential for their academic development.

Many journals explicitly encourage co-reviewing and require that the involvement of any co-reviewer be disclosed to the editor to ensure transparency and maintain ethical standards.

Templates for Mentors Co-Reviewing with Trainees

To facilitate effective and ethical co-reviewing, several templates and guidelines are available for mentors to use when involving trainees. These templates typically include:

• Acknowledgment Statements: A formal note in the review submission indicating the involvement of the trainee or junior reviewer.
• Guidance Notes: Step-by-step instructions for mentors on how to guide trainees in critically analyzing manuscripts, structuring their reviews, and providing constructive feedback.
• Feedback Forms: Tools to allow mentors to provide formative feedback on the trainee’s review, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.

For example, a mentor might use a template statement such as:

“This review was co-prepared by Dr. [Mentor Name] and [Trainee Name], who is a graduate student/postdoc at [Institution]. The trainee contributed significantly to the evaluation and critique of the manuscript.”

This transparency fosters trust between reviewers, editors, and authors, while also giving credit where it is due.

Ethical Concerns: Unacknowledged Co-Review

One major ethical concern with co-reviewing is the practice of unacknowledged co-review, where a trainee contributes substantially to a review but their involvement is not disclosed to the journal editor. This can violate journal policies and undermine the integrity of the peer review process.

Unacknowledged co-review can:

• Deny trainees recognition for their work and contributions.
• Breach confidentiality agreements if the trainee has not signed the necessary confidentiality agreements.
• Obscure accountability if questions arise about the quality or content of the review.

To prevent these issues, journals increasingly require reviewers to explicitly name any co-reviewers during submission and to ensure all contributors understand confidentiality obligations.

Recommendations for Training Programs

To foster responsible and skilled peer reviewers, many organizations have developed structured training programs and resources for reviewers at all career stages. These programs emphasize ethical practices, constructive reviewing techniques, and the importance of transparency in co-reviewing.

Some notable training programs include:

• ACS Reviewer Lab (American Chemical Society): An interactive, free online training platform that guides participants through the peer review process with case studies, best practices, and practical tips.
• Web of Science Academy: Offers comprehensive courses on peer review fundamentals, ethics, and advanced reviewing strategies, tailored for early-career researchers.
• Publons Academy: Provides modules on the peer review lifecycle, ethical considerations, and reviewer recognition.

Incorporating participation in these programs into mentorship can greatly enhance a trainee’s readiness to become independent, ethical reviewers. Mentors should encourage trainees to complete formal training, provide supervised co-reviewing opportunities, and promote open discussions about ethical dilemmas in peer review.

What the Data Says: Insights from Peer Review Surveys

To better understand how peer review functions globally and how reviewers perceive their roles, several large-scale surveys and empirical studies have been conducted. These findings shed light on the motivations, challenges, and evolving trends in the peer review ecosystem.

Publons Global State of Peer Review (2018)

In one of the largest surveys on peer review, Publons (now part of Web of Science) collected responses from over 11,000 reviewers across 100 countries. Key findings include:

• Motivation: The top reasons for reviewing were “contributing to the academic community” (82%) and “keeping up with the latest research” (70%).
• Recognition: 60% of reviewers reported a lack of formal recognition from their institutions for their peer review efforts.
• Reviewer burden: A small group of active reviewers (~10%) was found to perform over 50% of all reviews, raising concerns about sustainability.
• Training gaps: Many early-career researchers expressed a desire for formal training in how to review effectively.

 Read the full report

Nature Peer Review Surveys

Nature has conducted several surveys of authors and reviewers to explore perceptions of the review process:

• In a 2020 survey of over 3,000 researchers, 76% of reviewers said they believed their feedback improved the quality of manuscripts.
• Concerns raised included reviewer bias, inconsistent standards across journals, and time pressure as major limitations.
• Researchers emphasized the importance of transparent review practices, such as publishing reviewer reports or adopting open peer review models.

These surveys also highlight disciplinary differences. For example, researchers in the life sciences were more likely to support preprint and post-publication peer review, while those in clinical medicine prioritized confidential, blinded review.

 Read Nature’s 2020 survey summary

Other Noteworthy Studies

• A 2022 study in PLOS ONE reported that peer review quality was higher when mentorship and co-reviewing opportunities were available for early-career researchers.
• A 2015 analysis in Scientometrics found that reviewer agreement rates varied widely across disciplines—emphasizing the need for multiple reviewers to ensure balanced decisions.

These empirical findings not only reinforce the importance of peer review but also underscore the need for reform in recognition, training, and workload distribution. By understanding the data, aspiring reviewers can better appreciate their role in the larger academic ecosystem—and how they might help shape its future.

The Growing Challenge of Reviewer Fatigue and Overload

While peer review is essential to the integrity of science, the system increasingly faces a sustainability crisis: reviewer fatigue. As the number of journal submissions continues to rise, the pool of willing and qualified reviewers is not keeping pace.

What Is Reviewer Fatigue?

Reviewer fatigue refers to the burnout, stress, or disengagement experienced by academics who are repeatedly asked to review manuscripts—often without compensation, formal recognition, or institutional support.

According to the Publons Global State of Peer Review (2018):

• A small group of reviewers (about 10%) handles over 50% of all peer reviews worldwide.
• More than half of surveyed researchers reported declining review invitations due to time constraints.
• The burden is particularly heavy on active researchers in high-impact fields, as well as those at the mid-career or senior levels.

Why It Matters

Reviewer fatigue can have several negative consequences:

• Delays in the publication process, as journals struggle to find willing reviewers.
• Lower-quality reviews, rushed or completed with minimal effort.
• Reduced fairness, as overloaded reviewers may lack the time to give unfamiliar or complex studies the attention they deserve.
• Deterrence of early-career reviewers, who may feel overwhelmed or underprepared without adequate mentorship.

What Can Be Done?

To combat reviewer fatigue, several measures are being explored:

• Broader reviewer inclusion: Encouraging more early-career researchers and scholars from underrepresented regions to participate—ideally with mentoring.
• Recognition and incentives: Platforms like ORCID, Publons, and ReviewerCredits help reviewers document their contributions. Some journals offer certificates, fee waivers, or acknowledgments.
• Editorial accountability: Journals can manage reviewer workload more equitably by tracking frequency, response times, and review quality.
• Reimagining peer review: Open and post-publication peer review models allow for more distributed, community-based evaluation and reduce pressure on a few individuals.

What You Can Do

As a reviewer:

• Set boundaries: It’s okay to decline invitations if you’re overcommitted or outside your expertise.
• Support co-reviewing: Involve mentees to share the workload and build capacity.
• Communicate promptly: Respond to invitations quickly—accept or decline—so editors can plan accordingly.

Acknowledging and addressing reviewer fatigue is key to sustaining the peer review system. A healthy, respected, and supported reviewer community benefits everyone in science.

Peer Review: Quality Control or Gatekeeping?

Peer review is often described as the quality control mechanism of academic publishing—but critics argue that it can also act as a form of gatekeeping, sometimes suppressing innovation, reinforcing academic hierarchies, or favoring consensus over creativity.

The Quality Control Argument

Proponents of traditional peer review see it as essential for:

• Ensuring methodological rigor and ethical compliance,
• Filtering out flawed, misleading, or unsupported claims,
• Providing constructive feedback that improves manuscripts before publication.

When done well, peer review acts as a collaborative filter, helping authors refine their work while guiding journal editors in making informed publication decisions.

The Gatekeeping Concern

However, peer review has also been criticized for:

• Blocking novel or controversial ideas that challenge established paradigms,
• Favoring elite institutions or well-known researchers, particularly in selective or high-impact journals,
• Enabling subjective or biased decisions disguised as objective critique.

Some researchers argue that traditional peer review can become conservative, rewarding “safe” research while discouraging originality or interdisciplinary work. Others have raised concerns about power imbalances, where senior reviewers may suppress junior scholars’ work or where anonymity masks unfair or dismissive reviews.

Striking the Balance

New models of peer review attempt to navigate this tension:

• Open peer review promotes accountability and transparency.
• Post-publication peer review (e.g., on platforms like bioRxiv, PREreview, or PubPeer) allows community-based evaluation, reducing bottlenecks and editorial bias.
• Journal-led transparency initiatives (like eLife and F1000Research) emphasize iterative improvement rather than binary accept/reject decisions.

Ultimately, the goal is to shift peer review from being a barrier to a bridge—a means of elevating scientific work, not simply policing it.

As a Reviewer: Your Role in the Balance

Reviewers hold significant influence. You can help move the system toward fairness and improvement by:

• Welcoming novelty even when imperfectly executed,
• Distinguishing between critical flaws and fixable issues,
• Providing constructive, non-dismissive feedback,
• Being mindful of personal or disciplinary biases.

By engaging with peer review as a collaborative, not adversarial, process, you contribute to a culture that values both quality and innovation.

The Emerging Role of AI in Peer Review

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being explored as a tool to support and streamline the peer review process. While AI is not replacing human reviewers, it is being used to enhance review quality, reduce time burdens, and flag issues that might otherwise go unnoticed.

How AI Tools Are Being Used

1. Technical Checks and Pre-Screening
   Many journals now use AI tools (like StatReviewer or Penelope) to:
   • Verify adherence to journal formatting and submission guidelines,
   • Check for missing ethical statements or funding disclosures,
   • Flag incomplete references or unclear figure labeling.
2. Plagiarism and Text Similarity Detection
   Services like iThenticate use machine learning to scan manuscripts for overlap with published work. This helps identify:
   • Plagiarism or self-plagiarism,
   • Unattributed paraphrasing,
   • Duplicate submissions.
3. Language and Clarity Enhancement
   AI-powered writing assistants (e.g., Grammarly, Writefull, Trinka) can help authors—particularly non-native English speakers—improve clarity and fluency before submission. Some journals also use these tools during review to flag unclear language or grammar concerns.
4. Statistical and Methodological Checks
   Some platforms use AI to detect:
   • Inconsistencies between data and conclusions,
   • Questionable statistical reporting,
   • Poorly described methods or missing datasets.
5. Reviewer Matching Algorithms
   Editorial systems now use AI to match manuscripts with suitable reviewers based on prior publications, ORCID profiles, or semantic content—reducing manual workload and increasing review accuracy.

Limitations and Ethical Considerations

While promising, AI in peer review has limitations:

• Lack of contextual understanding: AI can miss nuanced arguments, novelty, or interdisciplinary insights.
• Bias replication: If trained on biased datasets, AI tools can reinforce existing inequities (e.g., flagging writing style from non-English-speaking authors as lower quality).
• Transparency: Authors and reviewers are often not informed when AI tools are used behind the scenes.

COPE and other ethics bodies stress that AI tools should support—not replace—human judgment and must be used transparently, especially when influencing editorial decisions.

What It Means for Reviewers

As AI tools become more integrated into editorial workflows:

• Reviewers may receive AI-augmented reports highlighting issues or inconsistencies.
• Time spent on technical checks may decrease, allowing reviewers to focus more on conceptual critique and originality.
• Familiarity with AI tools can enhance your reviewing efficiency and confidence.

AI is not a replacement for critical thinking or disciplinary expertise—but when used responsibly, it offers a powerful opportunity to enhance the fairness, speed, and rigor of the peer review process.

Key Ethical Guidelines and Frameworks Every Reviewer Should Know

Below are essential guidelines and resources that every reviewer—especially those working in health and biomedical sciences—should understand.

Ethical Standards for Reviewers

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

COPE provides comprehensive guidance on ethical review practices, widely endorsed across journals and publishers. Reviewers following COPE guidelines are expected to:

• Respond promptly to review invitations and decline when unqualified or conflicted.
• Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts and not use their content for personal advantage.
• Deliver constructive, respectful, and evidence-based feedback without bias.
• Disclose and act on suspected misconduct, such as plagiarism or data fabrication.

COPE’s framework is considered a global benchmark for ethical peer review.
Resource: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

The ICMJE emphasizes transparency, objectivity, and accountability in biomedical publishing. Key reviewer responsibilities include:

• Providing objective and constructive feedback.
• Avoiding personal or derogatory comments.
• Disclosing conflicts of interest and recusing oneself from biased reviews.
• Respecting authorship roles and confidentiality.

While ICMJE’s focus is on medical journals, its standards are often extended to other scientific disciplines.
Resource: ICMJE Recommendations – Roles and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Reporting and Transparency Frameworks

CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials)

Used for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the CONSORT checklist and flow diagram ensure transparent and complete reporting of trial methodology and results. Reviewers of clinical trials should assess manuscripts for CONSORT compliance.

EQUATOR Network

The EQUATOR Network provides a comprehensive library of reporting guidelines for various study types:

• STROBE (observational studies)
• PRISMA (systematic reviews)
• CARE (case reports), among others

Reviewers should reference these guidelines to evaluate the clarity and completeness of reporting.

CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy)

CRediT defines 14 author contribution roles (e.g., Conceptualization, Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing). Reviewers should check for transparent author contribution statements using the CRediT taxonomy to ensure proper credit is assigned.

 

How to Get Started

If you are interested in becoming a reviewer:

• Let your mentors know—many journals allow co-reviewing opportunities.
• Create or update your reviewer profiles on platforms like Publons, ORCID, and journal websites.
• Contact journal editors with a short introduction, your CV, and your areas of expertise.
• Start small—reviewing for student journals, open-access publications, or early-career researcher journals can be a great entry point.

Conclusion

Peer reviewers are essential to the integrity and evolution of scientific research. Far beyond simply critiquing manuscripts, reviewers serve as mentors, gatekeepers of quality, and advocates for ethical publishing. As peer review continues to evolve—with new models, technologies, and expectations—reviewers who stay informed, self-aware, and ethically grounded can have a profound impact on the research ecosystem.

Whether you’re an experienced researcher or an early-career scholar exploring co-reviewing or training opportunities, engaging in peer review is both a professional responsibility and a chance for meaningful growth. It allows you to sharpen your analytical skills, stay up to date with cutting-edge science, expand your network, and actively contribute to a fairer, more transparent academic community.

By embracing this role with integrity, critical thinking, and a collaborative mindset, you help ensure that scientific knowledge is rigorous, inclusive, and continually improving.

 

Need More Resources?

Explore more researcher tools and insights on our Resources page, and check out our other posts designed to support your research journey.