Reviewer fatigue is real

As the volume of submissions continues to rise, the scholars called upon to review have also started becoming overburdened. Absence of formal recognition diminishes the motivation of the reviewers. Moreover, the frequent poor quality and repetitiveness of the submissions make the process monotonous, contributing to burn out of the reviewer. Around 40% scientists stated being “too busy” as a reason to refuse in a survey conducted in 2015.[1] Reviewer fatigue is a growing concern in the academic publishing world that leads to delay in the publishing process. “Reviewer fatigue” has been defined as the difficulty that an editor faces in recruiting reviewers, who may feel overwhelmed by receiving excessive invitations to evaluate manuscripts.[2]

The humongous growth in submissions is the result of rapid advances in the field and growing eagerness among researchers to participate and contribute in the ongoing research. However, this has led to rising inflow of manuscripts and subsequent overburdening of the reviewers. The Global State of Peer Review report published in 2018 sheds light on critical trends and challenges facing the peer review process in academia.[2] Surveying over 11,000 researchers, the report highlights the growing issue of reviewer fatigue and the implications for journal editors.

Many academics (doctors) juggle clinical, teaching, research, and administrative responsibilities, leaving little time for thorough reviews. Around 42% of scholars feel overwhelmed with existing commitments, while 70% of scholars refuse to review the manuscripts because the article does not fall within their area of expertise.[2] The pressure to meet the deadline may cause superficial assessments and potential errors affecting the quality of scientific publications. The report also concluded that just 10% of reviewers handle almost 50% of peer reviews which can lead to mental and emotional strain for reviewers. The limited pool of active reviewers can limit the range of perspectives in the peer review process, impacting the diversity of published research.

Peer review has always been perceived as a voluntary service and commitment to uphold research integrity and contribute to the advancement of knowledge, and many see the act of reviewing as an opportunity to engage with cutting-edge research and remain informed about developments in their area of expertise.[3] Yet reviewers who often invest considerable time and effort into providing detailed, constructive feedback receive little more than informal acknowledgment in return. This can dampen the enthusiasm and participation in the peer review process.

For journal editors, this reviewer fatigue, along with rapid growth in science, and competition in getting the manuscript published have become multifaceted challenges. Finding a reliable and expert reviewer who can provide thorough evaluations is the first hurdle; once identified, retaining them becomes an even more uphill task. A shrinking pool of willing reviewers often results in longer review times and delays publication. Editors must strike a delicate balance between maintaining the rigor of the review process and preventing reviewer fatigue.

It is essential for journal editors and the academic community to implement effective strategies to engage more reviewers and sustain the integrity of the peer review system. Journals can simplify guidelines and reduce the complexity of the review process to make the process easy and quick for the reviewers. Providing detailed and clear review guidelines can help reviewers focus on key aspects of the manuscript, making the process more efficient. Utilization of technology, including artificial intelligence, for initial assessments can make the process less time-consuming for reviewers. Offering more flexible timelines for reviews can relieve the pressure and allow reviewers to provide more thoughtful feedback.

Formal recognition in the form of listing reviewers or providing certificates can encourage participation from reviewers. While financial incentive is not the motivation for reviewers, reduction/waiver of publishing fee or free access to databases is provided by some publishers.[4]

Actively seeking diverse reviewers can alleviate the workload on individual reviewers and bring fresh perspectives to the review process. Often, editors look at more established researchers with extensive publication records: it may be a good idea to tap the potential of early career researchers who may be more eager to participate to improve their credentials among their peer group, and thereby improve the diversity of reviewer pool with their distinctive approach and updated knowledge.[5,6] Offering training workshops focused on the peer review process can equip young researchers with the skills needed to conduct thorough reviews.

Reviewer fatigue is a significant challenge, affecting the quality and timeliness of peer reviews. Publisher should make efforts to recognize the causes and implement strategies to alleviate the burden on reviewers. Encouraging younger generation, providing recognition, and leveraging technology are essential steps toward revitalizing the peer review process and ensuring its continued effectiveness.

“Being a reviewer and an author are two sides of the same coin. You’re morally obliged. That's how the system works.”- Jonas Ranstam