Peer Review Fatigue: Causes, Consequences, and Sustainable Solutions

Introduction

Peer review remains the backbone of academic publishing. It validates research quality, strengthens manuscripts, and safeguards scientific credibility. Yet in recent years, the scholarly community has faced a growing challenge: peer review fatigue. As manuscript submissions increase globally, the pool of willing and available reviewers has not expanded proportionately. The result is delayed decisions, overburdened reviewers, and mounting pressure on editorial systems.

Understanding peer review fatigue is essential to preserving the integrity and sustainability of academic publishing.

What Is Peer Review Fatigue?

Peer review fatigue refers to the growing difficulty journals face in securing qualified reviewers within reasonable timeframes. Editors often invite multiple reviewers before receiving sufficient acceptances. Some manuscripts may require ten or more invitations to secure just two reviewers.

Several factors contribute to this trend:

• Rising global research output
• Increased pressure to publish
• Limited recognition for reviewing work
• Expanding interdisciplinary submissions requiring niche expertise
  

As submission rates continue to grow, reviewer demand increasingly exceeds supply.

The Root Causes

1. Publish-or-Perish Culture

Academic career progression remains closely tied to publication output. As researchers submit more manuscripts, the demand for peer reviewers increases correspondingly. However, reviewing is typically unpaid and under-recognized in formal evaluation systems.

2. Uneven Distribution of Reviewing Responsibilities

A relatively small group of highly active researchers conducts a disproportionate share of reviews. Early-career researchers may hesitate to accept review invitations due to time constraints or lack of confidence, while senior scholars may face overwhelming invitation volumes.

3. Time Pressures and Administrative Load

Academics juggle teaching, grant writing, administrative tasks, and research responsibilities. Peer review competes with these obligations, often becoming a lower priority.

4. Increasing Complexity of Research

Modern research often involves advanced methodologies, interdisciplinary approaches, and technical datasets. Reviewing such work requires substantial time and specialized expertise.

Consequences for the Publishing Ecosystem

Peer review fatigue has several ripple effects:

• Extended review timelines, frustrating authors
• Reduced review depth, when rushed reviewers provide minimal feedback
• Editorial strain, as editors invest more time recruiting reviewers
• Risk of reviewer burnout, potentially compromising quality
  

In extreme cases, journals may struggle to maintain rigorous review standards if they cannot secure qualified experts promptly.

Potential Solutions

Addressing peer review fatigue requires systemic change rather than short-term fixes.

1. Formal Recognition and Incentives

Institutions can incorporate peer reviewing into performance evaluations. Digital reviewer recognition platforms allow scholars to document review contributions, making invisible labor visible.

Some publishers experiment with incentives such as APC discounts, continuing education credits, or reviewer awards. While financial compensation remains debated, recognition is widely supported.

2. Expanding Reviewer Pools

Editors can diversify reviewer databases by including early-career researchers and scholars from underrepresented regions. Mentored peer review programs, where senior reviewers guide junior researchers, can build capacity while maintaining quality.

3. AI-Assisted Screening

Artificial intelligence can assist with preliminary checks—such as plagiarism detection, reporting guideline compliance, or statistical screening—reducing reviewer workload and allowing them to focus on substantive evaluation.

However, AI should supplement, not replace, expert human judgment.

4. Collaborative and Open Review Models

Some journals experiment with open peer review or community commenting systems, distributing evaluation across broader networks. While not universally applicable, these models may reduce pressure on individual reviewers.

5. Responsible Submission Practices

Authors also play a role. Submitting well-prepared manuscripts that adhere strictly to journal guidelines reduces unnecessary reviewer burden. Avoiding inappropriate journal targeting can prevent wasted review cycles.

Building a Sustainable Culture of Reciprocity

Peer review operates on reciprocity: scholars who publish are expected to review. Encouraging a culture where researchers accept a proportional number of review invitations relative to their submissions can improve balance.

Institutions, publishers, and scholarly societies must collaborate to ensure peer review remains a respected and sustainable academic responsibility.

Conclusion

Peer review fatigue is not merely an operational inconvenience—it is a systemic challenge affecting research quality and publishing efficiency. Addressing it requires recognition, innovation, and shared responsibility.

By valuing reviewer contributions, expanding participation, and integrating supportive technologies, the academic community can preserve peer review as a cornerstone of scholarly integrity while adapting to a rapidly evolving research landscape.