Tag: peer review

For years, innovation in scholarly publishing has focused on peer review, discovery, and access. Yet one of the most critical stages in the publishing lifecycle remains under-optimized and increasingly strained: editorial intake and manuscript screening.

This is where the real pressure is building—and where the next wave of transformation is emerging.

Publishers today operate in an environment defined by scale, variability, and risk. Submission volumes are rising exponentially, while manuscript quality is becoming increasingly inconsistent. At the same time, research integrity threats—from plagiarism and image manipulation to paper mills and AI-generated content—are becoming more sophisticated.

The result is not just inefficiency. It is systemic strain:

• Slower time to first decision
• Editorial bottlenecks and reviewer fatigue
• Inconsistent screening standards across journals
• Increased exposure to reputational and integrity risks

And yet, most editorial workflows are still designed for a different era.

The Job Publishers Need to Get Done

At its core, the challenge is not just operational—it is strategic.

Publishers need to:

• Control what enters peer review
• Ensure research integrity at scale
• Reduce editorial workload without compromising quality
• Accelerate editorial decision-making

However, manual screening processes—still the backbone of most workflows—make these objectives difficult to achieve. They introduce delays, inconsistency, and dependence on individual effort.

This points to a deeper need:

To transform manuscript intake from a manual workflow into a controlled, scalable, and system-driven capability.

The Invisible Bottleneck Before Peer Review

Peer review is widely regarded as the cornerstone of scholarly publishing. But increasingly, the real bottleneck lies before it begins.

Every submission must be:

• Checked for technical compliance
• Assessed for readability and structure
• Evaluated for integrity risks
• Prepared for editorial consideration

These tasks are essential—but they are also repetitive, time-consuming, and difficult to scale.

As a result, editors spend a disproportionate amount of time on mechanical, compliance-driven activities rather than on intellectual evaluation.

This creates a fundamental inefficiency: human expertise is applied where systems should operate.

EditorialPilot: A System for Editorial Intake

EditorialPilot is designed to address this exact gap.

It is an AI-powered editorial workflow system focused on manuscript screening and research integrity—functioning as the first line of defense before peer review.

Rather than acting as a point solution, it introduces a structured system layer at the intake stage, automating mechanical tasks and enabling editors to focus on judgment.

What EditorialPilot Actually Does

EditorialPilot brings together multiple capabilities into a unified intake system:

1. Automated Manuscript Screening

• Performs 100+ configurable checks across formatting, structure, completeness, and compliance
• Enables batch processing and early-stage triage

Outcome: Cleaner, more relevant manuscripts entering peer review

2. Research Integrity at Scale

• Detects plagiarism, image manipulation, authorship inconsistencies, and reporting gaps
• Integrates with specialized tools such as iThenticate, ImageTwin, and SciScore

Outcome: Systematic and scalable enforcement of publishing ethics

3. AI-Assisted Quality Improvement

• Provides readability scoring and non-intrusive language enhancement
• Preserves author voice while improving clarity for reviewers

Outcome: Higher-quality manuscripts and more effective peer review

4. Decision Support (Co-Pilot Model)

• AI summarizes, flags, and recommends
• Editors retain full control over decisions

Outcome: Faster, more confident editorial decision-making

5. Seamless Workflow Integration

• Integrates with systems such as Editorial Manager® and ScholarOne
• Deployable across pre-submission, pre-peer review, or post-acceptance stages

Outcome: Flexible adoption without workflow disruption

The Jobs-to-Be-Done EditorialPilot Solves

Publishers do not adopt systems—they “hire” them to solve specific problems.

EditorialPilot addresses the most critical jobs in editorial intake:

• Gatekeeping: Filtering out non-compliant submissions before they consume editorial time
• Integrity at Scale: Detecting fraud, paper mills, and AI-generated content systematically
• Workload Relief: Automating repetitive checks that contribute to editorial burnout
• Speed to Decision: Reducing bottlenecks and accelerating manuscript readiness
• Standardization: Applying consistent rules across journals and portfolios
• Non-Linear Scaling: Supporting growth without proportional increases in cost or staff

Together, these jobs point to a single overarching objective:

Bring control, consistency, and scalability to manuscript intake.

From Workflow to System: The Strategic Shift

What distinguishes EditorialPilot is not just automation—it is systemization.

It is positioned not as a tool, but as a system layer for editorial operations—or more fundamentally, as trust infrastructure.

This shift enables publishers to:

• Regain control in high-volume, high-noise environments
• Standardize quality and compliance across portfolios
• Create transparency and auditability in editorial decisions
• Build defensible processes aligned with evolving integrity expectations

In doing so, EditorialPilot addresses a deeper industry challenge: the growing need for legitimacy, trust, and accountability in scholarly publishing.

Strengthening Editorial Judgment, Not Replacing It

A defining principle of EditorialPilot is its human-centered design.

• AI handles the mechanical: screening, validation, compliance checks
• Humans retain control: judgment, interpretation, ethical oversight

This “co-pilot” model ensures that technology enhances editorial capability without undermining the expertise that defines scholarly publishing.

Strengthening the Weakest Link

In the publishing workflow:

Submission → Intake → Peer Review → Decision → Production

The intake stage is:

• The highest-volume
• The least standardized
• The most operationally intensive

And yet, it has the greatest influence on everything that follows.

Improving this stage leads to:

• Better-quality peer review inputs
• Reduced reviewer burden
• Faster and more consistent decisions
• Lower downstream risk

From Cost Center to Strategic Capability

EditorialPilot fundamentally changes how editorial operations are perceived.

From:

• Manual, labor-intensive workflows
• Cost centers driven by volume

To:

• System-driven infrastructure
• Scalable, high-efficiency operations

Its impact is measurable:

• Up to 2× increase in editorial productivity
• Around 40% reduction in administrative costs
• Up to 50% faster turnaround times

This is not just optimization—it is transformation.

The Operating System for Editorial Intake

As submission volumes grow and integrity challenges evolve, the competitive advantage in scholarly publishing will increasingly depend on what happens before peer review.

EditorialPilot enables publishers to control what enters peer review—at scale.

By addressing the most chaotic and least optimized part of the publishing pipeline—intake and triage—it shifts the foundation of publishing from manual workflows to systemized infrastructure.

In that sense:

EditorialPilot is the operating system for editorial intake—ensuring every manuscript is compliant, credible, and ready for human judgment.

Peer review is essential to maintaining the quality of academic research, but it is becoming an increasingly demanding role. The sheer volume of new research hitting the academic landscape has driven the demand for reviewers sky-high, leading to a very real issue: reviewer fatigue. Let us take a closer look at what reviewer fatigue is, why it is happening, and what we can do to help relieve the burden on these critical contributors to the scholarly process.

What is Reviewer Fatigue?

Reviewer fatigue is the exhaustion and burnout that reviewers experience from juggling the demands of peer review with their other professional and personal commitments. It is not just about feeling overworked; it is a problem with multiple layers:

• Overwhelming Workload: Reviewers are seeing an explosion of submissions, which means they are often tasked with multiple review assignments at once. The load can be crushing.
• Tight Deadlines: Many reviewers feel pressured to deliver feedback in limited periods. The standard turnaround time of two to three weeks often does not match the depth of analysis required, pushing some to rush their reviews, which compromises quality.
• Lack of Recognition: Though reviewers provide an invaluable service to academia, their contributions are often under-acknowledged, leaving many feeling like their work goes unnoticed.
• Conflicts of Interest: Reviewing papers from close colleagues or competitors requires balancing integrity with caution, which can feel mentally draining.

How Reviewer Fatigue Impacts the Peer Review Process

Reviewer fatigue does not just affect the reviewers—it impacts the entire peer review ecosystem. Here is how:

• Delayed Reviews: Exhausted reviewers often need more time to complete assignments, extending the timeline for authors waiting for feedback. Requests for deadline extensions are increasingly common as reviewers try to manage their other responsibilities alongside reviewing tasks.
• Low Quality Reviews: When reviewers are stretched to the limit, their feedback may lack depth, potentially impacting the quality of research that makes it to publication. Rushed reviews can miss critical issues, and this compromises the rigor that peer review is supposed to guarantee.
• Decline in Participation: Burnout can drive reviewers to decline invitations more frequently, shrinking the pool of active reviewers and making it even harder for journals to find qualified individuals to evaluate submissions.

How Journals Can Combat Reviewer Fatigue

If we want a sustainable, high-quality peer review process, something has to change. Publishers and academic journals have several options that can help:

Manage the Workload

• Limit Review Assignments: Journals can set a reasonable cap on the number of reviews assigned to each reviewer in a year. This way, reviewers are not overloaded and can focus on delivering higher-quality feedback on the assignments they do accept.
• Staggered Deadlines: Offering flexible deadlines helps reviewers integrate these tasks into their schedules more effectively, allowing them to provide thorough evaluations without feeling rushed.
• Use Reporting: Journals can use reviewer performance reports in peer review systems to monitor their workload and analyse the review rating. Strategic action plans can be actively discussed in editorial board meetings for implementation.

Broaden the Reviewer Pool

• Diversify the Reviewer Base: Rather than relying on the same individuals, journals should actively seek reviewers from diverse backgrounds, career stages, and geographies. This spreads the workload and brings in fresh perspectives, benefiting both the review process and the journal’s quality.
• Leverage AI for Reviewer Recommendations: Advanced AI tools can recommend reviewers based on subject expertise and publication history, helping editors to identify suitable, qualified reviewers beyond their immediate network.
• Encourage Co-Reviewing: Pairing early-career researchers with seasoned reviewers (a practice known as co-reviewing) introduces new experts to the review process while easing the load on established reviewers. It is a win-win, as new reviewers learn from experienced mentors, and seasoned reviewers get support in completing their reviews.

Recognize and Reward Reviewers

• Public Acknowledgement: Journals can acknowledge reviewer contributions through newsletters, annual recognition lists, or even social media shoutouts. Recognizing reviewers publicly not only validates their work but also encourages them to continue contributing.
• Provide Incentives: Tangible rewards, like free journal access or professional development opportunities, are simple but effective ways to show appreciation. Some journals even offer discounts on publication fees or conference tickets, which can go a long way in supporting reviewers.

Offer Clear Guidelines and Support

• Provide Detailed Instructions: Clear guidelines and templates streamline the review process by helping reviewers understand exactly what is expected. This prevents ambiguity and saves reviewers time, ultimately enhancing the quality and consistency of feedback.
• Implement Mentorship Programs: Mentorship can be a powerful tool for developing a skilled reviewer pool. Experienced reviewers mentoring early-career researchers helps build a new generation of qualified reviewers, strengthening the community eventually.

Foster a Positive Review Culture

• Encourage Constructive Feedback: Constructive criticism benefits everyone involved—authors, reviewers, and editors. Journals can promote a review culture that values constructive and respectful feedback, leading to a more positive experience for reviewers.
• Minimize Negative Experiences: Journals can create policies that support a fair, respectful review process and protect reviewers from negative interactions, which can deter them from participating in the future.

The Benefits of Addressing Reviewer Fatigue

Addressing reviewer fatigue is not just beneficial for reviewers; it is vital to maintaining the quality of the research ecosystem. Here are some of the key benefits:

• Enhanced Review Quality: Reviewers who are not overburdened are better equipped to give careful, detailed, and constructive feedback, which in turn benefits authors and raises the standard of published research.
• Faster Manuscript Processing: When reviewers have manageable workloads, they can complete assignments more promptly. This shortens turnaround times and allows research to reach the community faster, which is particularly important in rapidly evolving fields.
• A Sustainable Peer Review System: A balanced workload makes the review process more welcoming and sustainable for everyone involved. By supporting reviewers, journals build a more resilient peer review ecosystem capable of handling growing publication demands.

Conclusion

Reviewer fatigue is a serious challenge that is impacting not just reviewers, but the entire academic publishing ecosystem. Tackling this problem requires initiative-taking steps from journals to create a more balanced, supportive peer review environment. By spreading review assignments, acknowledging contributions, fostering mentorship, and encouraging constructive feedback, journals can reduce fatigue and make reviewing a more rewarding experience.

In a world where the demand for scientific knowledge keeps growing, sustainable solutions to reviewer fatigue are essential to maintaining the integrity and timeliness of research dissemination. Supporting reviewers is not just a gesture of goodwill; it is a necessary step toward a healthier, more resilient scholarly publishing system.

About the author:

Abdul Hakkim is the Senior Manager, Peer Review Services at Integra, a leader in scholarly publishing services. With extensive experience in setting up teams and ensuring the highest standards of quality, Hakkim excels at meeting publisher requirements and driving operational excellence. His expertise spans across supporting research integrity, enhancing manuscript screening, and optimizing peer review processes. Hakkim is dedicated to improving efficiency and fostering innovation in the publishing industry, shaping its future through leadership and strategic growth.

The peer review process is a cornerstone of academic publishing, ensuring the credibility and quality of the research we rely on. Yet, it’s also notorious for being slow—sometimes painfully so. For many authors, waiting for months to get feedback on their manuscripts can feel like an eternity, especially when they are eager to share groundbreaking findings with the world. But why exactly does peer review take so long? The reasons are complex and multifaceted, involving challenges faced by editors, reviewers, and authors alike. By understanding these challenges, we can start to see the bigger picture and work toward solutions that might speed things up.

The First Gate: Desk Rejection

Let’s start at the beginning: desk rejection. This is when an editor gives your manuscript a quick once-over to decide whether it’s even worth sending out for peer review. Sometimes, the paper gets rejected right away due to reasons like lack of novelty, not fitting the journal’s scope, or high text similarity to previous works. Sure, a quick rejection can feel like a punch in the gut, but in reality, it’s better than waiting weeks or months for a more thorough rejection. Plus, it frees up reviewers from evaluating papers that aren’t a good fit, which, in turn, helps speed up the review process for manuscripts that are ready to move forward.

Still, even this early step can introduce delays. Why? Well, editors often have a large volume of submissions to go through, and if a paper is a borderline case, it may require more time and discussion before making a decision. This part of the process could be streamlined with clearer guidelines and more efficient editorial workflows, ensuring that decisions are made quickly and without unnecessary holdups.

 The Reviewer Search: A Bottleneck

Now, assuming your manuscript clears the desk rejection hurdle, it’s time for the real challenge: finding reviewers. It might seem like this should be a straightforward task, but it’s often the biggest bottleneck in the entire process. Editors need to find reviewers who not only have the right expertise but are also free of conflicts of interest and willing to take on the work. Believe it or not, this can be like searching for a needle in a haystack.

In some highly specialized fields, the pool of available reviewers is already quite small. And even when editors find the right person, there’s no guarantee they’ll be available. Many reviewers are overcommitted, balancing teaching, research, grant writing, and their own publishing deadlines. Understandably, they might decline an invitation to review, which means editors have to start the search process all over again. This back-and-forth can go on for weeks or even months, delaying the entire process.

If that wasn’t enough, there are also geographical considerations. Reviewers in different time zones or regions might respond more slowly, or they could be tied up with other local obligations. During holidays or peak academic seasons, securing reviewers becomes even more challenging. All of these factors contribute to extended timelines for peer review.

Why Peer Review Takes Time: The Contributing Factors

So, once reviewers are found, why does it still take so long for them to complete the review? There are several contributing factors, some more obvious than others:

• Availability and Workload: Reviewers are often juggling multiple responsibilities, and they may not have the time to complete a review by the journal’s deadline. They may ask for extensions, which can push timelines back considerably.
• Reviewer Fatigue: Some reviewers get burned out from the sheer number of requests they receive. It’s not uncommon for them to delay responses or even withdraw from the review altogether, leaving the editor to find a replacement.
• Manuscript Complexity: Let’s not forget that some manuscripts are simply more difficult to review. Long or complex papers require more time and effort, which inevitably leads to slower turnaround times.
• Conflicts of Interest: Occasionally, conflicts of interest emerge after the review process has already started. This means the manuscript needs to be reassigned, leading to further delays.
• Lack of Communication: Sometimes, reviewers just aren’t good communicators. They might agree to review but fail to follow up, leaving the editor in limbo.
• Editor Delays: Even after reviews are submitted, editors need to assess the feedback, reconcile any differences in opinion among reviewers, and make a decision. This part of the process can also take time, especially if multiple rounds of review are required.

Altogether, these factors create a perfect storm of delays, making it clear why peer review often takes longer than anticipated.

How Can We Fix It? Strategies to Speed Things Up

At this point, it might feel like peer review delays are an inevitable part of the process, but there are ways to improve efficiency. Journals are starting to explore solutions that could make a big difference.

Diversify the Reviewer Pool

One key strategy is to broaden the pool of potential reviewers. Rather than relying on a small group of overworked individuals, the editors can recruit reviewers from different geographical regions, disciplines, and career stages. This reduces the burden on any one group and helps ensure that journals aren’t left waiting for the same reviewers’ time after time.

Recognize Reviewer Efforts

Let’s be honest—reviewers aren’t doing this for the money. Most of them volunteer their time out of a sense of duty to the academic community. That said, recognition goes a long way. Journals can acknowledge reviewers’ efforts by offering certificates, publicly recognizing their contributions, or even listing them as part of a “Reviewer of the Year” initiative. When reviewers feel valued, they’re more likely to engage promptly.

Set Clear Expectations

Clear communication can make all the difference. Journals that set realistic deadlines and communicate them clearly are more likely to see timely submissions. Of course, reminders help too—automated systems can send gentle nudges to reviewers as deadlines approach, encouraging them to stay on track. Adding iCal to the review invitations and reminders was a great idea.

Structured Guidelines

Reviewers sometimes take longer because they aren’t sure what the journal is asking of them. Providing structured review guidelines that outline exactly what’s expected can help streamline the process. When reviewers have a clear framework to follow, they’re more likely to complete their assessments efficiently and thoroughly.

Technology to the Rescue

Why not let technology lend a hand? Many journals are turning to automated systems that match manuscripts with potential reviewers based on their expertise. These systems can significantly speed up the reviewer selection process. Additionally, some journals are experimenting with inviting multiple reviewers simultaneously, ensuring that if one drops out, there’s already someone in place to take over.

Parallel or Alternate Reviews

Another technique is to run parallel or alternate reviews. By inviting a larger group of reviewers from the outset, journals have backup options ready to step in if initial reviewers are unavailable or delayed. This helps keep the process moving, even if unexpected delays arise.

Transparent Editorial Processes

Transparency on the editorial side is just as important. Editors need to minimize delays in decision-making by ensuring that their workflows are efficient. Quick evaluations of reviewer feedback, clear communication with authors, and swift decision-making can all help reduce bottlenecks after reviews are complete.

The Bigger Picture

All of these strategies point to a more efficient future for peer review. By addressing the root causes of delays—whether it’s reviewer recruitment, time management, or editorial inefficiencies—journals can improve the speed and quality of the process. That’s a win for everyone involved: authors get their work published faster, reviewers feel appreciated and less overwhelmed, and the academic community benefits from the timely dissemination of new research.

In the end, we all know that peer review delays can be frustrating, but understanding the reasons behind them and working toward practical solutions can make a real difference. The process might not be perfect, but with a bit of innovation and collaboration, it can certainly be faster and more efficient. After all, when high-quality research reaches the world sooner, the benefits ripple far beyond the academic sphere.

About the author:

Abdul Hakkim is the Senior Manager, Peer Review Services at Integra, a leader in scholarly publishing services. With extensive experience in setting up teams and ensuring the highest standards of quality, Hakkim excels at meeting publisher requirements and driving operational excellence. His expertise spans across supporting research integrity, enhancing manuscript screening, and optimizing peer review processes. Hakkim is dedicated to improving efficiency and fostering innovation in the publishing industry, shaping its future through leadership and strategic growth.

The world of scholarly publishing is always changing, isn’t it? New challenges pop up, and the demands keep evolving. That’s why continuous training and development are such big deals for anyone involved in the peer review process. Our recent article, “Training for Success” published in ISMTE EON takes you through the journey of a peer review manager and highlights just how important training can be—not just for individual growth but for elevating the entire editorial process.

Why Training Matters More Than Ever

In “Training for Success” (read it here), we talk about how training isn’t just about learning new skills (although that’s definitely part of it). It’s about creating a culture where continuous growth is the norm. That’s key in an industry that never stands still. We all know how the peer review process can sometimes feel like a marathon, but with the right training, it can be more like a well-paced relay where everyone knows their role and the baton gets passed smoothly.

Making Training Work: What Are the Key Strategies?

Let’s dive into some practical strategies for making training really count:

• Empower Teams by Building Their Skills

Think of training as giving your team a solid toolkit. It’s about more than just completing tasks—it’s about equipping Editorial Assistants with the skills to take on challenges head-on. With the right training, they’ll feel more confident handling complex situations, which ultimately benefits the journals they support.

• Boost Workflow Efficiency

We have all felt the distress of bottlenecks in the peer review process. Effective training can smooth things out. When teams are well-versed in the latest tools and best practices, everything just flows better. Fewer delays, more coordination, and way less time wasted.

• Reinforce Research Integrity and Ethical Standards

There’s no doubt that research integrity is at the heart of what we do. Training helps ensure everyone understands and adheres to the highest standards of ethical publishing. It’s about building a team that’s not only skilled but also tuned in to the nuances of identifying potential ethical issues before they become bigger problems.

• Stay Ahead of Industry Changes and Tech Advances

The landscape of scholarly publishing is constantly shifting—new technologies, updated guidelines, and emerging trends. Continuous training is what keeps your team agile and ready to adapt. It’s all about preparing for what’s next, rather than just reacting to it.

Training for Sustainable Success

Let’s face it—training isn’t a “one-and-done” kind of deal. It’s an ongoing journey. As we shared in “Training for Success,” making a commitment to continuous development means your team will always be ready for the evolving demands of the industry. Think of it as future-proofing your team, ensuring that they’re not just keeping up, but staying ahead.

Wrapping It Up

The insights from the article reflect our belief that great training can transform editorial processes. We are all about raising the bar in publishing, and that starts with giving our teams the skills and support they need to thrive.

If you’re curious and want to dive deeper, you can check out the full article here: Training for Success (https://doi.org/10.18243/eon/2024.17.9.1).

Let’s keep the focus on learning and growth as we shape the future of scholarly publishing together!