I revisit the submission website once more. And once more again. Occasionally in the dead of night, I catch myself refreshing the page, wishing for a minor update (a new status, a change in wording, an indication that my manuscript has transitioned from “under review” to “decision in process”).
For researchers in the early stages of their careers, this waiting period is well-known. We invest months, sometimes years, into designing a study, gathering data, writing, revising, and eventually submitting. Then abruptly, we relinquish our work to an unseen system and await further news. Days morph into weeks. Weeks evolve into months. Some journals reply within a few days. Others can take up to six months. Amid those extended silences, I frequently ponder: Why is the peer review process so unpredictable?
Who are the reviewers behind the scenes
Peer review serves as the foundation of scientific publishing, yet it remains one of its greatest enigmas. Who are these reviewers? Are they authorities in the field, or merely anyone willing to assist? Do they genuinely grasp the intricacies of what they are reading, the depth of the subject, the context of the data?
In theory, peer review should maintain scientific integrity. However, in practice, it often resembles a haphazard system. Some reviewers offer insightful, constructive feedback; others present vague or severe remarks that indicate a limited comprehension.
I’ve encountered both types of reviews: one that enhanced my work and improved it, and another that left me questioning whether the reviewer had looked beyond the abstract.
What causes the delays
It’s well-known that locating reviewers is increasingly challenging. Most journals depend on volunteers: unpaid, unrecognized, frequently overburdened academics who fit in reviews amid clinical duties or late-night writing.
As someone who experiences both sides of the process (as an author and a reviewer), I recognize how much time is required to read, contemplate, and deliver a significant critique. Sometimes, after a full day in clinical practice, I think, “Just one more hour, I’ll complete this review tonight.” Because I understand that someone on the other side is waiting, refreshing their inbox, much like I am.
But should this crucial work rely solely on goodwill? Shouldn’t reviewers be compensated, not just with a thank-you email or a certificate, but with genuine acknowledgment of their time and expertise?
Where do we proceed from here
There exists no universal guideline for peer review. No central authority guaranteeing quality or timeliness. Each journal functions differently; some with strong systems and accountability, others striving to secure even a single qualified reviewer.
Perhaps it’s time to rethink the process. To create a transparent, standardized platform where reviewers receive training, support, and even remuneration for their contributions. To ensure that authors, particularly early-career researchers, are not left waiting indefinitely: anxious, uncertain, and invisible.
As I wait
As I anticipate that single email (the one that states “decision made”), I reflect on how much trust we invest in this system. A system founded on confidence, volunteerism, and noble intentions.
And I wonder if we can improve it. For the reviewers who dedicate their time. For the editors who find it challenging to locate them. And for the authors who find themselves awake in the middle of the night, refreshing the page, hoping for a minute advancement.
V. Sushma Chamarthi is a pediatrician and obesity medicine physician.