Peer review is caught at a critical moment. The ever-growing number of submissions to journals requires 2-3 reviewers per reviewed manuscript, and, frankly, it feels like the system is at breaking point. Review requests seem to be concentrated on older, white, western males - with whole continents under-represented in the process - and academics can barely afford the time these days to devote to 'free' labour when their own research positions are under scrutiny and uncertain. It's not unusual nowadays to hear of papers with significant delays to editorial decision simply because the editorial office can't find 2 or 3 qualified reviewers to agree to review it. Desk rejects are becoming more common, not because of content, but because reviewers can't be found.
So, what is the answer? Open review platforms, paying reviewers, payment in kind, wider reviewer pools, new forms of review? We'll be discussing all of these and more. Join us!
Notes Document
