Striking the balance with a back-to-basics approach
By Nicola Cook (Managing Editor) and Max Reuter (Editor-in-Chief)
This week, 14–18 September 2026, is Peer Review Week. At the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, we would like to celebrate this event first of all by extending a sincere thank you to everyone in the evolution community who reviews for our journal. Peer review is the cornerstone of academic publishing. By presenting our research for evaluation by experts in our field, we test the robustness of our findings and help ensure that the work we publish makes a credible and enduring contribution to the scholarly record. None of this happens without the people who give their valuable time to review the work of others. So, first and foremost: thank you.
The theme of Peer Review Week this year is “Peer Review Capacity: Volume, Speed and Quality.” The challenges facing the peer review system in these respects are not new. The volume of manuscripts submitted to journals globally is increasing, putting increased demand on a finite pool of already time-pressured academics to review those manuscripts (Hanson et al. 2024). Some of the increases in the volume of scientific production are welcome—they reflect the fact that the scientific community is growing and including an increasing constituency in emerging economies and the Global South. But the enthusiasm about these positive developments is dampened by the more worrying side of the wave of publishing output. This is in part due to a persisting culture of ‘publish or perish’ that emphasises quantity over quality—despite many institutions at least nominally signing up to the DORA principles. But worse still, a significant part of the increased production is due to a growing number of journals that are driven by financial objectives and sacrifice scientific rigour in favour of volume and speed.
How can traditional publishing cope with these changes? Yesterday, The Scholarly Kitchen asked its “chefs” to highlight what they thought were the uncomfortable truths surrounding peer review. Their responses were varied and highlighted the complexity of the capacity issue. They included the view that the current model cannot be scaled up without AI involvement, while also emphasising that human peer review remains critical. Others pointed to the need to address the exponential expansion of publishing itself, and suggested that peer review capacity needs to be considered much earlier in the publishing workflow.
There is clearly no single or immediate solution, particularly given the external pressures on the system. So what can we do to maintain our high standards of scientific rigour while limiting our demands on the time of individual editors and reviewers? Can we hold on to what we value about peer review while making the process as efficient as possible for our authors, reviewers and editors?
To start with the basics, we asked all our editors this question: What would you never change about the peer review process? The replies were heartening and indicated that our editors value the human, collaborative aspects of the process. Peer review is not simply a mechanism for filtering papers; it is performed with the shared aim of creating the best possible scientific record.
Trine Bilde (Handling Editor): “Peer review is what keeps science rigorous.”
Wen-Juan Ma (Associate Editor): “Independent reviews, followed by careful editorial synthesis, is essential for balanced and rigorous decision-making.”
Alejandro Gonzalez Voyer (Handling Editor): “It is a wonderful, open system where all co-operate (or should!).”
Michael Moore (Associate Editor): “The work will be stronger when we get input from reviewers who approach submissions with different perspectives and/or who might focus on different aspects of each submission.”
Chris Cooney (Associate Editor): “The basic understanding that both parties are (usually) acting in good faith to produce a better outcome.”
Rich Meisel (Commissioning Editor): “The best reviewer reports engage with the manuscript and offer constructive feedback that improves the paper. Not gatekeeping. Assistance.”
The above makes it clear (if any clarification were needed!) that our approach and policies to peer review are right and should not be changed. So how can we reduce the pressure on reviewers? One strategy is to make sure that every review counts. Manuscript transfers are one way of ensuring this is true, and we have a number of established routes that allow editors and authors to pass manuscripts with their reviews and decisions between journals (e.g. directly with Evolution and Evolution Letters, or via OUP’s transfer desk). We are also a “Peer Community In-friendly” journal and are happy to accept the submission of manuscripts with reviews and a recommendation from PCI.
But you as the authors and reviewers yourselves also have important agency in this context, most notably in deciding where you direct your time and effort. Several initiatives try to assist us in this effort. PEEER, Publishing for an Ethical and Equitable Environment in Research, is a group of stakeholders in the publishing ecosystem working to “foster a culture in which authors, editors, and reviewers choose publication venues that support affordable and equitable access plus a healthy scientific and research community”. They have compiled a list of society journals to help authors submit to journals that align with their values. Similarly, editors and reviewers can decide which journals are deserving of their services. Members of community can direct their efforts with help of the DAFNEE database: a “Database of Academia Friendly jourNals in Ecology and Evolution” (Galtier et al. 2026). At the time of writing this article, 699 non-profit, learned society or university-associated journals relevant to the field of ecology and evolutionary biology are listed. For each journal, information such as business model (e.g. hybrid vs Open Access), publisher type (for-profit vs not-for-profit) and institution type (e.g. society, university, government, museum etc) is provided. By choosing to review only for journals that support ethical publishing practices and prioritise integrity in the scholarly record, perhaps we can all make our contribution to reducing the burden on reviewers.
Could we also reduce some of the pressure on reviewers by minimising anxieties around what makes a good review and clarifying what our expectations are? We asked our editors to think about the best reviewer report they had received and to tell us why it was so good. Notably, none of them said they needed a perfectly written report by a world-leader in the field!
Francesca Raffini (Associate Editor): “They were really thorough and kind about it — you could tell they seriously took the time to actually engage with it instead of just skimming, and the feedback still managed to be constructive without feeling harsh.”
Scott Egan (Associate Editor): “To me, the best peer reviews are constructive, specific, and respectful…The hallmark of a great review is one that can tell exactly what is wrong, why it’s wrong, and what modification or evidence would resolve the concern.”
Masahito Tsuboi (Associate Editor): “It was respectful and constructive. Peer review is at its best when the reviewer is genuinely trying to help the authors improve their manuscript.”
Michael Moore (Associate Editor): “A thing that I like about editing at JEB is that reviewers don’t usually just tear papers down. Our reviewers often provide really constructive reviews that actually help the authors improve their manuscripts. The best reviews always identify the problem, explain why it’s a problem, and then give a few ways that the problem could be addressed.”
At JEB, our ethos is straightforward: we will always prioritise a good review by the right person over a quick review from somebody less expert in the exact area. Our editors value a thorough report that is constructive, respectful and states clearly the areas for improvement and how that improvement can be brought about. To allow reviewers to focus their time and expertise on the manuscript, there are several aspects of assessment that we will take care of in the editorial office to save reviewer time:
- You don’t need to check whether data are present or whether they meet our requirements for accessibility and reusability. Our in-house Data Editor takes care of this, so you don’t have to.
- You won’t spend time reviewing papers that are out of scope for JEB. Our Handling Editors filter these manuscripts before they are sent out for peer review.
- The editorial office undertakes checks for plagiarism, paper-mill submissions, duplicate submissions and other ethical issues before manuscripts reach our Handling Editors. We do encourage everyone to remain vigilant and flag anything that looks suspicious.
- Copy-editing is not your responsibility. If the meaning of a manuscript is clear, we are happy to accept phrasing reflecting the local origin of the authors. Comments that improve clarity and readability are very welcome, but you don’t need to do a proof-read. Our production team will take care of this post-acceptance.
There are also some simple things that reviewers can do to help us keep the process moving while maintaining the quality of peer review:
- Please respond to review invitations promptly where possible. An unanswered invitation can add at least a week to review time. We completely understand that you are busy and that you may not have capacity in your own system. A prompt decline allows us to approach another reviewer straight away.
- Be realistic about how long you need to review a paper. Our standard review times help keep manuscripts moving, but we would always prefer a thoughtful review over a rushed one. If you need a short extension, please let us know—we’d much rather receive a well-considered review a little later than have to start again and find additional reviewers.
- Please do keep in touch with us where possible. We understand that life gets in the way and you may not be able to complete a review you had agreed to undertake. A very quick message to let us know that you can no longer complete the review means we can move forward.
The peer review system is no doubt under pressure, but perhaps we don’t need a full reinvention. Our approach is the following: keep the focus on finding the right reviewer rather than simply the quickest available reviewer; give reviewers the time and information they need to do a good job; remove tasks that don’t require their expertise; keep communication open between all parties; and, above all, recognise that peer review works because people are willing to give their time and expertise to support the work of others. Thank you for this!
References
Nicolas Galtier, Khalid Belkhir, Pierre-Olivier Antoine, Christine Bibal, Christophe Boëte, Frédéric Delsuc, Elise Huchard, Sonia Kéfi, Charly Maeder, Laure Paradis, Sébastien J Puechmaille, Alain Queffelec, Céline Scornavacca & Carole M Smadja, Time to publish responsibly: DAFNEE, a database of academia-friendly journals in ecology and evolutionary biology, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Volume 39, Issue 2, February 2026, Pages 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeb/voaf143
Mark A Hanson, Pablo Gómez Barreiro, Paulo Crosetto & Dan Brockington, The strain on scientific publishing, Quantitative Science Studies, Volume 5, Issue 4, November 2024, Pages 823–843. https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/5/4/823/124269/The-strain-on-scientific-publishing
