The Growing Burden: Addressing Reviewer Fatigue

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.