Future of peer review

6 hours ago

By: Cynthia Saver, MS, RN

Peer review has fallen under a critical lens lately. Peer reviewers who inappropriately use artificial intelligence (AI) to write their reviews, editors who struggle to obtain a sufficient number of reviewers, and the question of whether reviewers should receive compensation for their time are examples of issues being discussed.

ScholarOne’s “The 2026 Future of Peer Review Report” examines current issues and offers suggestions for change to keep the peer review process vibrant. The report’s content draws on manuscript submissions and review data, a literature review, expert interviews, and a survey of authors and reviewers.

Here are a few takeaways, with some of my thoughts from a nurse editor perspective.

Current landscape

The report addresses multiple problems related to review, but one that stood out to me is that the rate at which scholars accept review requests fell by nearly half between 2018 and 2025. It now takes an average of 4.5 invitations to obtain a reviewer, compared to 2.3 in 2018. These findings align with what I hear from many of my nursing journal editorial colleagues: It’s become increasingly difficult to find nurses willing to serve as peer reviewers.

Obviously, not having enough reviewers can slow review times, increasing stress for authors anxiously awaiting the fate of their manuscripts. What might not be obvious is the larger impact on nurses. Slower reviews hinder publication of important developments, which translates into delays in practice implementation, and, in turn, impedes potential benefits for patients. In fact, the report notes that the median time from manuscript submission to acceptance increased by 23 days between 2018 and 2025.

Another issue is the higher volume of manuscripts submitted in recent years, which drives up peer review demand. One source of this problem may be the rising pressure on graduate students and faculty members to publish. The increase in manuscripts means an increase in peer review requests, exacerbating pressures. I often hear nurses who serve as peer reviewers complain about getting too many requests.

Unfortunately, higher manuscript volume hasn’t translated into higher quality, prolonging review time. In addition, the use of AI has grown, which also may be contributing to higher submission rates of manuscripts that aren’t of high quality. Unfortunately, the tools to detect AI are far from perfect.

Possible strategies

One discussed approach to attracting more reviewers is monetary compensation. While certainly a possible option, these payments could have a serious impact on journals’ budgets, particularly smaller journals. The report also cites an article where the authors wrote that monetary compensation could undermine peer review integrity. According to the report, when asked which improvements would have the greatest benefit to their work as a reviewer, only 21% on respondents picked review compensation.

Automated integrity checks (52%) topped the list of strategies. I’m not surprised. The peer reviewers I know worry about the use of AI and spend increasing amounts of time checking for misinformation. In fact, they may be the ones to alert editors to an author’s possible use of AI. Many attempts have been made to develop AI detection tools, but they still have serious limitations.

Much of the discussion about AI has focused on its use by authors, but AI also is being explored for use by reviewers. In most cases, this would be part of a hybrid approach: AI assistants that could help human reviewers.

One idea that seems to me to be of tremendous value is organizational recognition of peer review contributions. As the report notes, having reviewer activity counting toward tenure would be helpful. Peer review training and even certification can position peer review as a true career-building activity as opposed to a professional obligation. Personally, I don’t think the word “obligation” is much of a motivator for most people.

Editors should be aware of the top three reasons peer reviewers gave for accepting an invitation: they were invited by an editor they’re familiar with (36%), the manuscript was on a topic they were “passionate” about (26%), and they were invited by a journal they often read, publish, or review in (20%). I think this speaks to the need for editors to know their reviewers on a more personal level and not only their topic expertise. Building connections is important.

A word to peer reviewers

I encourage you to download and read the free report. In contains much more valuable information. I also want to take a moment and thank those of you who serve as peer reviewers. Journals couldn’t publish quality content without you, and I salute those of you willing to add this to your busy schedule.

For those who aren’t peer reviewers, but want to know more about it, check out my previous blog “Peer review: A tool for career growth.” I encourage you to give peer review a try. Conducting reviews has strengthened my writing skills, and I think it could do the same for you.

Cynthia Saver, MS, RN, is editor of the award-winning book Anatomy of Writing for Publication for Nurses, 5^thed. She has more than three decades of publishing experience as a writer, editor, and publishing executive. Cynthia’s work has appeared in many journals, and her past positions include editorial director for American Nurse Journal, which she helped launch. Cynthia is passionate about helping nurses share their expertise by writing for publication and happily shares her knowledge though The Writing Mind blog, articles, short presentations, and workshops.