By Christopher Cotton, Abid Alam, and David Maslove, Queen’s University

Peer review is central to scientific publishing. Whether in economics, science, or medicine, peer review ensures research is carefully checked before reaching practitioners, policymakers, and the public. Yet, the system, which relies on experts volunteering their time, often struggles to secure enough qualified reviewers. As submissions increase and experts’ time becomes increasingly stretched, journals face delays, rushed or lower-quality reviews, and inconsistencies in evaluation.

Medicine experienced heightened challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, as high submission volumes and limited expert availability put unprecedented strain on the system. Many researchers turned to pre-prints (papers published online without formal peer review) to speed dissemination, a practice historically less common in medical publishing.

Could paying peer reviewers help alleviate the reviewer shortage? We tested this question experimentally at Critical Care Medicine, a leading medical journal (see also the coverage of our work at Nature). Our study found modest improvements, suggesting that payment alone is insufficient to fully address the peer-review bottleneck.

Read More »