This SciPoll examined the sustainability of the current journal peer review system, looking at experts’ perspectives on system viability, potential improvements, changing attitudes, and effectiveness at identifying methodological flaws.
Our results show a highly concerned reviewer community, with 60% of respondents believing the current peer review system is not sustainable given increasing submission volumes. Only 33% believe the system can continue to function effectively, while 7% remain unsure.
Key Findings:
When asked about potential modifications that would be most beneficial, “paid peer review” received overwhelming support with nearly three times more votes than any other option. Structured review formats and open peer review followed as the second and third most popular choices. Many respondents emphasized the economic imbalance in the current system: “It is an unfair system where we have to find the money for the research, for publication, etc. – but we are reviewing for free.”
The data shows a concerning trend in how experts’ perspectives have evolved, with 60% of respondents becoming more critical of the peer review system over the past five years. As one reviewer explained: “I fear the current system is overwhelmed and collapsing under its own weight.” Only 18% reported becoming more positive about the system, while 20% saw no significant change.
Despite these sustainability concerns, there is still moderate confidence in the system’s core function, with 45% finding peer review “somewhat effective” at identifying methodological flaws. However, many noted that effectiveness varies significantly depending on reviewer expertise and journal quality: “It strongly depends on the journal” and “It depends on who the reviewers are.”
These insights from our expert network underscore the growing challenge of maintaining research integrity through traditional peer review mechanisms.