Peer review is often described as the backbone of scholarly publishing. Before research is published in most journals, independent experts evaluate it for quality, accuracy, and significance. Yet the vast majority of these reviewers do this demanding work without payment. As publishing has grown into a large global industry, a long-running debate has intensified: should peer reviewers be paid?
This article explores the question from both sides, including how peer review currently works, arguments for and against paying reviewers, what recent experiments have found, alternative ways to recognise reviewers, and what the future may hold.
Table of Contents
How Peer Review Works Today
In the traditional model, journal editors invite researchers with relevant expertise to review submitted manuscripts. Reviewers assess the methods, analysis, and conclusions, then recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. In most cases, reviewers:
- Volunteer their time without direct payment
- Review papers alongside their regular research, teaching, and clinical work
- Remain anonymous to authors in many journals
- Receive little formal recognition for their contributions
Many researchers view reviewing as part of their professional duty, a way of giving back to a system from which they also benefit as authors. Journal editors, who coordinate the process, may be paid a stipend or salary, but reviewers usually are not.
The Growing Pressure on Reviewers
The number of research papers submitted worldwide has grown significantly, while the pool of willing reviewers has not kept pace. Editors frequently report difficulty finding available experts, leading to delays in publication. At the same time, reviewers face heavy workloads and competing demands on their time, which can contribute to “reviewer fatigue.”
Arguments for Paying Peer Reviewers
Fair Compensation for Skilled Work
Reviewing a paper carefully can take many hours of expert time. Supporters argue that this specialised work deserves compensation, just as other professional consulting services do.
Publishers Generate Revenue
Some commercial publishers earn substantial revenue from subscriptions and publication charges. Critics argue it is unfair for these companies to rely on unpaid labour from researchers whose salaries are often publicly funded.
Faster Reviews
Payment could motivate reviewers to accept invitations more readily and complete reviews more quickly, reducing publication delays that frustrate authors and slow the spread of new knowledge.
Greater Equity
Early-career researchers, researchers in lower-income countries, and those without permanent positions may find it harder to give unpaid time. Payment could widen participation and diversify reviewer pools.
Professional Recognition
Paying reviewers could signal that peer review is valued work, not an invisible favour.
Arguments Against Paying Peer Reviewers
Cost and Higher Fees
Paying reviewers would increase publishing costs. These costs could be passed on through higher subscription prices or article processing charges, potentially making publishing harder for authors with limited funding.
Risk to Quality and Motivation
Some worry that payment could attract reviewers more interested in money than careful evaluation, encouraging rushed or superficial reviews.
Conflicts of Interest
Financial relationships between reviewers and publishers could raise concerns about independence, particularly if reviewers feel pressure to please the paying journal.
Administrative Complexity
Paying thousands of reviewers across many countries involves contracts, tax rules, and payment systems, adding administrative burden for journals.
Changing the Culture of Service
Some researchers value peer review as a collegial contribution to their field and fear that payment could change this sense of shared responsibility.
Arguments at a Glance
| For Paying Reviewers | Against Paying Reviewers |
|---|---|
| Recognises skilled expert labour | Raises publishing costs |
| May speed up reviews | Effects on speed may be modest |
| Could widen participation | Adds administrative complexity |
| Addresses publisher profits | Possible conflicts of interest |
What Do Experiments Show?
Recent studies have started testing paid peer review in practice.
Critical Care Medicine Study
Researchers at Queen’s University in Canada ran a quasi-randomised experiment with the journal Critical Care Medicine. Some reviewers were offered US$250 per review, while others were not paid. The results showed:
- Acceptance of review invitations rose from about 42 percent to about 50 percent
- Reviews were completed slightly faster, around 11 days compared with 12
- No measurable difference in review quality
The authors concluded that the benefits were modest and probably not worth the cost for most journals, though payment could be useful in special situations, such as a public health crisis requiring rapid review.
Biology Open Pilot
The journal Biology Open, published by The Company of Biologists, ran a pilot in 2024 offering reviewers either a quarterly retainer or £220 per manuscript, with reviews due within four working days. According to the published preprint, editors rated all reviews in the pilot as helpful, and reviews were returned in just over four days on average. The pilot involved a small number of manuscripts and included costs for contracts, systems, and staff as well as reviewer payments.
Together, these studies suggest that payment can make review faster and more predictable, but its overall value depends on cost, scale, and how the system is designed.
Different Perspectives in the Debate
Reviewers
Many reviewers say they would welcome payment or recognition, but surveys and discussions also show that motivations vary. Some review to stay current in their field, help colleagues, or improve science, and may feel that small payments would not change their decisions.
Publishers
Publishers differ widely. Large commercial publishers, society publishers, and small non-profit journals have very different budgets. A payment model that works for a well-funded journal may be impossible for a small society journal.
Universities and Funders
Because researchers often review during paid working hours, some argue that universities and funders already support peer review indirectly. Others suggest these institutions should formally recognise reviewing in workload models and career evaluations.
Authors
Authors want faster, high-quality reviews but may be concerned if payment leads to higher publication charges. Any change to reviewer compensation is likely to affect authors in some way.
Alternatives to Direct Payment
Journals and organisations have experimented with other ways to recognise reviewers:
- Discounts: reduced article processing charges or subscription fees
- Public recognition: annual reviewer acknowledgements and awards
- Review credit: adding peer review activity to ORCID records
- Career recognition: universities counting reviewing in promotion decisions
- Training and certificates: professional development for reviewers
- Published reviews: open peer review that makes reviewer contributions visible
What Might the Future Look Like?
The debate is unlikely to end with a single solution. Possible developments include:
- Paid review in specific situations, such as urgent or highly specialised reviews
- Hybrid models combining modest payments with recognition
- Greater institutional recognition of reviewing as part of academic work
- Further experiments across different types of journals and fields
Final Thoughts
So, should peer reviewers be paid? There are strong arguments on both sides. Payment recognises valuable expert labour and may speed up reviews, but it also raises costs, adds complexity, and has shown only modest effects in some experiments. For now, many experts suggest that better recognition, fairer workloads, and targeted payment models may offer the most practical path forward, while further research helps determine what works best for science.
