Scientific publishing relies on peer review as a mechanism to keep up trust in what we publish. When we read a journal article, we assume that experts have reviewed it thoroughly before publication. This crucial system is currently under severe strain.
We conducted a comprehensive study of Australian journals and their editors – Survey of 139 editors And Interview 27. The picture is worrying.
Finding qualified peer reviewers has turn into one in every of the largest challenges for editors. When peer review can’t be adequately ensured, each the long-term viability of journals and research integrity suffer. The voluntary system that supports academic trust is collapsing.
The extent of the crisis
More than half of the editors we surveyed (55%) rated the seek for reviewers as a significant or very major challenge.
Some described having to send out 30 or more invitations to draw just two reviewers. One called the method “ridiculous.” Another expressed frustration with authors who had recently published of their journal but “repeatedly refused to review it.”
There are also appraisers who say “yes” after which never do the appraisal, further delaying the method.
The consequences are significant. Some journals now reject manuscripts entirely if they can’t find suitable reviewers, although the work is extensive and potentially helpful.
Articles take longer to publish and high-quality research results may remain unpublished because they can’t be properly peer-reviewed. This is a systemic crisis.
Why academics reject invitations to offer reviews
Peer review stays completely voluntary. Scientists review manuscripts without payment, formal recognition, or recognition as a part of their workload.
Researchers are under pressure to extend the amount, quality and impact of their research. At the identical time, universities are actively curbing the activities that support scholarly publishing, and plenty of editors report that their universities have eliminated editorial and peer review roles entirely from workload models.
As a result of accelerating workloads, scientists are protecting their time more fastidiously. The changes in work-life balance following the COVID-19 crisis have also led academics to be more selective in how they allocate their efforts. At the identical time, the variety of submitted articles continues to extend: more papers to be reviewed, fewer willing reviewers, and never every creator is a professional reviewer.
There can be a scarcity of reciprocity. Newly published authors often decline a review. Some editors suggested that publication in a journal should include a commitment to review.
Current strategies fall short
Of course, editors have developed workarounds. These include using databases to discover reviewers, conducting reviewer training workshops to mentor emerging scholars, reviewing reference lists, and making greater use of editorial boards.
They also report rejecting more papers within the initial review phase, before they’re sent out for peer review, to scale back the variety of manuscripts that must be reviewed. However, this increases the time required by editors.
An emerging concern amongst some editors is the looks of reviews generated by artificial intelligence (AI). These reviews could be vague, confusing, and don’t improve manuscripts. This is exacerbating the crisis. Peer review should ultimately be carried out by.
Systemic changes are essential
Short-term strategies is not going to solve this crisis.
Some suggested solutions include paying reviewers or Introduction of mandatory verification Requirements for authors to review the identical variety of articles as they publish. But these will not be easy to implement.
Peer review is such an integral a part of the scientific system that without peer review, research would grind to a halt.
Yet the best way universities and research institutions measure success stays invisible in the present metrics-driven culture.
The crux of the issue, as one editor put it, is that “the extrinsic or intrinsic advantages are simply not as strong as they was once.” Therefore, it must be higher recognized and promoted by universities and other stakeholders, for instance by incorporating it into workload models, highlighting it in promotion criteria, etc.
Why this is significant
This crisis affects all of us who depend on published research. It threatens the viability of magazines, especially local or independent magazines not owned by major publishers. But fundamentally it compromises the integrity of the scientific record itself.
We have built a publishing system based entirely on volunteer work, particularly for local and independent magazines. Without significant change – without formal recognition, support and real incentives – the shortage of assessors will worsen. Release plans will suffer. The diversity of publishing houses will decrease. Trust in peer reviews will diminish.
The solution requires motion from multiple stakeholders, including universities, funders and research assessment bodies.
Scientific communities must understand that maintaining peer review is a shared responsibility. The voluntary system that underpins academic trust has been taken without any consideration for too long. It's time to begin making the suitable assessment.
