Josephine C. Adams (Editor-in-Chief, Physiological Reports), Damian M. Bailey (Editor-in-Chief, Experimental Physiology), Kim E. Barrett (Editor-in-Chief. The Journal of Physiology), Colleen E. Clancy (Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Precision Medicine: Health and Disease), Craig Sale (Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Nutritional Physiology)
As the Editors-in-Chief of the five journals published by the Physiological Society (TPS), Peer Review Week offers us a great opportunity to reflect on the immense contribution of those who volunteer their time to evaluate work submitted to our journals, and to consider how the changing landscape for scholarly publishing is impacting this vital function.
Peer Review Week 2026 has the timely and thought-provoking theme of “Peer-review Capacity: Volume, Speed, and Quality”. We certainly heartily thank all researchers who have peer-reviewed a manuscript for any of our TPS journals over the last year. Each of us understands the significance of the vast army of peer reviewers in elevating the quality and impact of the papers and other article types that we publish, and many of us seek directly to recognise and reward those whose contributions are particularly extensive and/or otherwise notable. Given the essential role of peer review in the scholarly robustness and integrity of published research, we would like to see yet more recognition of the time and effort of reviewers; not only by publishers and professional societies, but also by institutions and funding bodies.
But as the scholarly literature continues to expand, the number of outlets increases exponentially, and our reviewers experience ever-greater demands on their time, the search for qualified reviewers becomes more and more challenging. In fact, the collective capacity of editors and researchers to maintain high-quality peer-review is under strain – for example, since 2018, the mean number of invitations that an editor needs to send to obtain one reviewer has increased from 2.3 to 4.5 (data from ScholarOne) [1]. In fact, only 23% of all reviewer invitations sent in ScholarOne in 2025 resulted in a review [2].
Overall, despite editors’ best efforts, more time may be taken in obtaining reviewers than for the external peer-review of a manuscript. That said, we are proud that the TPS journals continue to provide timely decisions to authors and remain committed to the quality of peer-review as the primary benchmark. There has also been a clamour from some quarters that reviewers should stop providing unpaid labour that underpins the profits of wealthy publishers, despite the fact that most reviewers are themselves authors, and thus benefit from this system, built largely on goodwill, when their own manuscripts need to be reviewed.
We do recognise many additional benefits that accrue from serving as a reviewer. First, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to see unpublished findings and to be part of shaping the direction of a discipline. Second, it is easy to understand how reviewing many manuscripts will sharpen one’s analytical skills and make one a better author. Finally, while peer reviews themselves may not carry specific benefits in terms of academic advancement, this service is often a gateway to professional development opportunities such as editorial board service (or even serving as an Editor-in-Chief!) providing tangible evidence of a national or even international reputation for one’s expertise. We encourage early-career researchers to work with their mentors and/or to seek training events to develop skills and expertise to become effective and collegial peer-reviewers as the first step to recognition by editorial board membership, and the associated growth of professional networks.
Nevertheless, securing peer reviewers remains difficult and we must acknowledge why. First, many faculty members are working at or beyond capacity. A single day may include teaching, clinical care, experiments, data analysis, manuscript and grant writing, and meetings, but even that list understates the full scope of their (our) responsibilities. For example, teaching includes course development, assessment design, learner feedback, research supervision, thesis committees, and instruction during clinical encounters. Clinical work extends into after-hours documentation and patient messages. Staff supervision, protocols, budgets, purchases, and funder deadlines occur daily.
Further, behind core responsibilities is an expanding layer of invisible academic labour: mentoring, recommendation and promotion letters, completing evaluations, managing staff, committees, reviewing grants, responding to institutional requests, and addressing the endless stream of emails. Faculty also navigate ever-proliferating compliance requirements spanning ethics, human subjects, animal welfare, data security, conflicts of interest, workplace conduct, and clinical and laboratory safety. Grant agencies, journals, health systems, professional bodies, and collaborating institutions each add their own forms, portals, passwords, certifications, deadlines, training and reporting expectations.
Enumerating all of these responsibilities generates a long and exhausting list, but that is precisely the point. Faculty are bombarded by requirements and requests. Each activity alone is reasonable, but together they consume the days, evenings and weekends with little time remaining to think. Peer review is itself a substantial intellectual responsibility. A careful review requires reading the manuscript, evaluating methods, data, and interpretation, checking figures and references, assessing novelty and significance, and writing rigorous, constructive, and useful comments. As editors, we are grateful to colleagues who make time for these exacting tasks. But we recognise that declining an invitation does not necessarily reflect disengagement. It may be simply that no capacity remains.
While all journals are feeling the pressure to secure committed reviewers, this is a particular challenge for our newest journals, where reputation is not inherited, but must be earned. In establishing a reputation, few things are more important than high-quality peer review. Authors entrust journals with their research, but reviewers contribute something equally valuable, their time and expertise. In an increasingly crowded publishing landscape, researchers receive more invitations to review than they can possibly accept, so choosing where to invest one’s time becomes paramount. As such, reviewers should perhaps ask themselves questions like: 1) Does this journal serve a community I care about? 2) Would I be happy to submit my work here? 3) Are its values aligned with mine? and 4) Will my expertise genuinely influence the quality and direction of the research being published?
This is where reviewing for a society journal can be particularly rewarding. Rather than contributing to a large-scale publishing operation, reviewers can help strengthen a journal that exists to serve their own scholarly community. Their contribution helps shape standards, develops researchers and supports the advancement of the discipline. For a start-up journal, every quality and thoughtful review matters. Reviewers are not simply assessing manuscripts; they are helping establish the journal’s culture, expectations and scientific reputation. So, when the next invitation arrives, we hope that the question is not simply ‘Do I have time to review this?’, but perhaps ‘Is this society, journal and manuscript deserving of my time?’
In closing, we conclude that peer review is one of science’s most valuable endeavours; researchers generously giving their time and expertise to help strengthen the work of others. As we consider its future, three ‘elephants in the room’ offer opportunities for us to make the process even better. The first is time. Early- and mid-career researchers are often among our most active and thoughtful reviewers, yet they may have little protected time for this scholarly contribution. Greater recognition within workload models and academic appraisal would help peer review sit more comfortably alongside researchers’ many competing responsibilities, and acknowledge its vital role in safeguarding research quality and integrity.
The second is artificial intelligence. Used responsibly, AI may eventually become a helpful reviewing aid. However, unpublished manuscripts and grant applications contain confidential information that should not be uploaded to external tools. TPS is developing safeguards to help identify inappropriate AI-assisted reviews while encouraging responsible and transparent innovation.
The third is something authors can help with directly: suggesting suitable reviewers. Recommending bona fide specialists who have the necessary expertise while importantly, no conflicts of interest, can significantly accelerate the editorial process. It also reduces the time Editorial Boards spend verifying suggestions and searching for alternatives.
Peer review ultimately depends upon partnerships: between authors, reviewers, editors, institutions and publishers. By recognising reviewers’ contributions and their competing demands, protecting confidentiality and offering thoughtful reviewer suggestions, we can make those partnerships faster, fairer and more rewarding for everyone.
- Silverchair Report: 2026 FUTURE OF PEER REVIEW. https://www.silverchair.com/news/future-of-peer-review-2026/
- ibid.