Who should still peer-review, for whom, and with what tools?
Abstract
In drafting On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin developed his thoughts through extensive correspondence with trusted colleagues, seeking feedback on ideas, manuscripts, and proofs. This informal peer-review process, like many others of its time, was based on personal trust, academic respect, and reputation rather than guided by any institution, and it helped pave the way for modern peer review. Today, peer review has been largely corrupted by corporate greed: a handful of dominant mega-publishers exploit reviewers (and to an extent also editors) as an unpaid, external workforce expected to supply scientific judgement, quality control, and career signalling that journals package and sell but do not themselves produce. Amid an ever-increasing volume of review requests reaching researchers' inboxes daily, many respond by declining invitations outright, if they respond at all. Others accept but rely heavily on AI, since this saves time and a few more reviews will look good on their Web of Science profile. Thorough intellectual assessments are becoming increasingly rare. The current system is not sustainable, and change is urgently needed before expert judgement is fully displaced by speed, prestige signalling, and machine-written reports. Solutions include distributing unpaid peer-review labour more wisely, prioritizing non-commercial publishers and academia-friendly journals, exploring alternative business models, and redesigning peer review so that human expertise is concentrated on tasks requiring scientific judgement while low-order tasks are supported by AI. Above all, researchers, editors, funders, publishers, and societies should stop treating review as free certification labour and instead recognize it as a scarce scholarly resource that must be used where it contributes most to scientific quality.
Related
- Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It
- Cognitive Assessment Tools Developed or Adapted for Indigenous Populations in North America, South America, and Oceania: A Systematic Review
- The genome sequence of Simplicillium lamellicola (F.E.V. Sm.) Zare & W. Gams, 2001 (Hypocreales: Cordycipitaceae) [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
- Expanded implementation of Fast & Fair paid peer review reduces time to first decision without reducing review quality in a biology journal
- AI-Assisted WES Variant Interpretation in Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Narrative Review of Existing Tools.
BibTeX
@misc{mammola2026should,
title = {{Who should still peer-review, for whom, and with what tools?}},
author = {Stefano Mammola and Lorenzo Vilizzi and Paride Balzani and Danish Ali Ahmed and Lucian Pârvulescu and Joana Garrido Nogueira and Manuel Lopes-Lima and Ronaldo Sousa and Mattias L Johansson and Alessandro Nota and Carlos Cano-Barbacil and Ali Serhan Tarkan and Eva Záhorská and Anna Gavioli and Virginie Raybaud and Emili Garcia-Berthou and Baran Yoğurtçuoğlu and Jingrui Sun and Ross N. Cuthbert and Elizabeta Briski and Ester M Eckert and Barbora Števove and Teun Everts and Diego Fontaneto and Stelios Katsanevakis and Riccardo Scalera and Michel Bariche and Valentini Stamatiadou and Marta Rodríguez-Rey and Phillip Joschka Haubrock},
howpublished = {EcoEvoRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.32942/x2s697},
url = {https://ecoevorxiv.org/repository/view/15678/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Who should still peer-review, for whom, and with what tools?
AU - Stefano Mammola
AU - Lorenzo Vilizzi
AU - Paride Balzani
AU - Danish Ali Ahmed
AU - Lucian Pârvulescu
AU - Joana Garrido Nogueira
AU - Manuel Lopes-Lima
AU - Ronaldo Sousa
AU - Mattias L Johansson
AU - Alessandro Nota
AU - Carlos Cano-Barbacil
AU - Ali Serhan Tarkan
AU - Eva Záhorská
AU - Anna Gavioli
AU - Virginie Raybaud
AU - Emili Garcia-Berthou
AU - Baran Yoğurtçuoğlu
AU - Jingrui Sun
AU - Ross N. Cuthbert
AU - Elizabeta Briski
AU - Ester M Eckert
AU - Barbora Števove
AU - Teun Everts
AU - Diego Fontaneto
AU - Stelios Katsanevakis
AU - Riccardo Scalera
AU - Michel Bariche
AU - Valentini Stamatiadou
AU - Marta Rodríguez-Rey
AU - Phillip Joschka Haubrock
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/02
PB - EcoEvoRxiv
DO - 10.32942/x2s697
UR - https://ecoevorxiv.org/repository/view/15678/
AB - In drafting On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin developed his thoughts through extensive correspondence with trusted colleagues, seeking feedback on ideas, manuscripts, and proofs. This informal peer-review process, like many others of its time, was based on personal trust, academic respect, and reputation rather than guided by any institution, and it helped pave the way for modern peer review. Today, peer review has been largely corrupted by corporate greed: a handful of dominant mega-publishers exploit reviewers (and to an extent also editors) as an unpaid, external workforce expected to supply scientific judgement, quality control, and career signalling that journals package and sell but do not themselves produce. Amid an ever-increasing volume of review requests reaching researchers' inboxes daily, many respond by declining invitations outright, if they respond at all. Others accept but rely heavily on AI, since this saves time and a few more reviews will look good on their Web of Science profile. Thorough intellectual assessments are becoming increasingly rare. The current system is not sustainable, and change is urgently needed before expert judgement is fully displaced by speed, prestige signalling, and machine-written reports. Solutions include distributing unpaid peer-review labour more wisely, prioritizing non-commercial publishers and academia-friendly journals, exploring alternative business models, and redesigning peer review so that human expertise is concentrated on tasks requiring scientific judgement while low-order tasks are supported by AI. Above all, researchers, editors, funders, publishers, and societies should stop treating review as free certification labour and instead recognize it as a scarce scholarly resource that must be used where it contributes most to scientific quality.
ER -