» Articles » PMID: 34776003

A Billion-dollar Donation: Estimating the Cost of Researchers' Time Spent on Peer Review

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2021 Nov 15
PMID 34776003
Citations 30
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The amount and value of researchers' peer review work is critical for academia and journal publishing. However, this labor is under-recognized, its magnitude is unknown, and alternative ways of organizing peer review labor are rarely considered.

Methods: Using publicly available data, we provide an estimate of researchers' time and the salary-based contribution to the journal peer review system.

Results: We found that the total time reviewers globally worked on peer reviews was over 100 million hours in 2020, equivalent to over 15 thousand years. The estimated monetary value of the time US-based reviewers spent on reviews was over 1.5 billion USD in 2020. For China-based reviewers, the estimate is over 600 million USD, and for UK-based, close to 400 million USD.

Conclusions: By design, our results are very likely to be under-estimates as they reflect only a portion of the total number of journals worldwide. The numbers highlight the enormous amount of work and time that researchers provide to the publication system, and the importance of considering alternative ways of structuring, and paying for, peer review. We foster this process by discussing some alternative models that aim to boost the benefits of peer review, thus improving its cost-benefit ratio.

Citing Articles

The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence.

Aczel B, Barwich A, Diekman A, Fishbach A, Goldstone R, Gomez P Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025; 122(5):e2401232121.

PMID: 39869808 PMC: 11804526. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2401232121.


The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform.

Trueblood J, Allison D, Field S, Fishbach A, Gaillard S, Gigerenzer G Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025; 122(5):e2401231121.

PMID: 39869806 PMC: 11804702. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2401231121.


Reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals: recommendations for early career scientists.

Forero D, Glatt S, Oermann M BMC Res Notes. 2025; 18(1):17.

PMID: 39819633 PMC: 11740453. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-024-07060-8.


How to write an effective journal peer review using a staged writing approach: a best-practice guide for early-career researchers.

August E, Brouwer A Int J Epidemiol. 2024; 53(6).

PMID: 39570678 PMC: 11580681. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyae154.


The challenge of reviewers scarcity in academic journals: payment as a viable solution.

Belem de Oliveira Neto J Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2024; 22:eED1194.

PMID: 39319961 PMC: 11461020. DOI: 10.31744/einstein_journal/2024ED1194.


References
1.
Heinemann M, Gottardi R, Henning P . "Select Crowd Review": A New, Innovative Review Modality for The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021; 69(5):387-388. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1732285. View

2.
Kirman C, Simon T, Hays S . Science peer review for the 21st century: Assessing scientific consensus for decision-making while managing conflict of interests, reviewer and process bias. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019; 103:73-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.01.003. View

3.
Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L . The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise. PLoS One. 2016; 11(11):e0166387. PMC: 5104353. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166387. View

4.
Jiang Y, Lerrigo R, Ullah A, Alagappan M, Asch S, Goodman S . The high resource impact of reformatting requirements for scientific papers. PLoS One. 2019; 14(10):e0223976. PMC: 6821399. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223976. View

5.
Larsen P, von Ins M . The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics. 2010; 84(3):575-603. PMC: 2909426. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z. View