Rethinking Peer Review: Who pays? (#373)

Rick LeCouteur
Jul 19
4 min read

Reviewing a manuscript for a scientific journal used to be considered an honor – an act of collegial duty, a reciprocal obligation to the profession. You reviewed someone else’s manuscript because someone else reviewed yours. No money changed hands. Recognition came in the form of influence, reputation, and perhaps a thank you note from the editor.

But in an era when commercial publishers generate millions in profit and scientific publishing has become a 24/7 enterprise, the old model is straining.

Is it still reasonable to ask reviewers – experts in their fields, already under pressure from grant writing, teaching, and clinical practice – to work for free?

The answer is complicated. What once was a professional obligation now feels increasingly like an unfunded mandate.

The Erosion of Review Quality: What’s Driving It?

The peer review system isn’t collapsing, but it’s groaning under the weight of modern pressures – and the quality of reviews may be suffering as a result.

The combined pressure of more journals, faster publishing expectations, rising complexity in veterinary medicine, and lack of formal reward has had a measurable and troubling impact on the quality of peer reviews – not just in veterinary medicine, but across academic disciplines.

Here's how each factor contributes:

Proliferation of Journals
- Effect: The explosion in the number of journals – many of them open access or for-profit – has drastically increased the number of manuscripts needing review.
- Impact on Quality
  - Reviewer fatigue: The same small pool of experts is asked to do more.
  - Dilution of expertise: Less qualified or overly busy reviewers may be assigned.
  - Predatory journals: Some forgo rigorous review altogether, eroding trust in the process.

Faster Publishing Expectations
- Effect: Authors expect rapid turnaround, and journals compete on speed to attract submissions.
- Impact on Quality
  - Time pressure undermines careful, reflective critiques.
  - Shortcuts: Reviewers may skim, rely on gut impressions, or overlook subtle flaws.
  - Editors may settle for any reviewer who responds, rather than ideal matches.

Increasing Complexity of Veterinary Medicine
- Effect: Advances in genetics, imaging, informatics, and “omics” have raised the technical bar for manuscripts.
- Impact on Quality
  - Few reviewers can confidently assess every aspect (e.g., stats, methodology, clinical relevance).
  - Interdisciplinary studies often receive incomplete or fragmented review.
  - Misjudgments become more likely when reviewers are unfamiliar with emerging techniques or data types.

Lack of Recognition or Incentive
- Effect: Peer review remains unpaid, uncredited in formal evaluations, and invisible in tenure metrics.
- Impact on Quality
  - Reviews are seen as chores, not achievements.
  - Less effort is invested, especially for lower-tier journals.
  - Junior academics may feel exploited, while senior ones increasingly decline.

Combined Effect Over Time: A Decline in Depth and Rigor

While many reviewers still approach the task with care and integrity, the overall trend has been:

Shorter reviews
Generic comments, sometimes generated by AI (see below)
Over-reliance on editorial triage
Rising rates of error or retraction
Widening variability in review quality

How This Connects to Reviewer Payment

These challenges strengthen the case for restructuring incentives. Whether through hybrid compensation (see below), formal recognition, or institutional support, something must give if peer review is to remain rigorous, fair, and trusted in an increasingly demanding environment.

The Rise of AI in Peer Review

As pressures mount, some reviewers have begun turning to AI tools like ChatGPT, Grammarly, or SciSummary to help draft or enhance their reviews.

These tools are time-saving, and can aid with grammar, summarization, plagiarism detection, or spotting logical inconsistencies, and more (!) but their use raises ethical and practical concerns.

Are reviewers disclosing AI assistance?

Do AI-generated critiques lack the nuance of field-specific expertise?

Could confidential manuscripts inadvertently be uploaded to proprietary platforms?

Used judiciously, AI can support overburdened reviewers – but it should never replace the critical thinking, contextual understanding, and ethical responsibility that only human experts can provide.

Should Reviewers Be Paid?

The idea of paying reviewers is gaining ground, not just as a symbolic gesture.

Payment could:

Acknowledge the intellectual labor involved

Encourage timely, thorough reviews

Widen the reviewer pool

Support equity for early-career and under-resourced scholars

But not everyone agrees. Some argue that paying reviewers "commodifies" an altruistic tradition. Others worry about the cost burden, especially for nonprofit or society-run journals. There’s also the question of whether money would improve quality or simply introduce new biases.

A Proposed Hybrid Solution: Balancing Ethos and Equity

A middle ground may be emerging – one that blends modest compensation with flexibility and fairness.

A hybrid system might include:

Tiered Models Based on Journal Type
- High-profit journals offer honoraria ($50–$200/review)
- Nonprofits and society journals provide non-monetary rewards like Article Processing Charge (APC) discounts, certificates, or public acknowledgments

Reviewer Choice
- Let reviewers choose:
  - Modest payment
  - Donation to a research fund
  - Discount on publication fees
  - Formal recognition through ORCID etc.

Strategic Payment
- Offer compensation in cases of:
  - Fast-track or time-sensitive review
  - Highly technical or interdisciplinary expertise

Annual Stipends or Credit Systems
- Reward frequent reviewers or editorial board members with:
  - Annual honoraria
  - Travel grants
  - Redeemable review credits across platforms