Peer review, the traditional system in which researchers volunteer to assess each other's work before publication, is under growing strain as the volume of academic papers rises faster than the pool of willing, qualified reviewers. Editors report struggling to find reviewers, meaning studies are increasingly assessed by too few people, or by people unqualified or too rushed to do the job properly, which can lead to valid research being wrongly rejected. This matters because peer review underpins trust in scientific findings, yet researchers describe the process as slow, painful and, in its current state, unable to keep pace with demand.

The number of papers indexed in databases such as Scopus and Web of Science is growing exponentially, at around 5.6 percent a year, and one estimate puts the global time spent on peer review at 15,000 years annually, worth an estimated $1.5 billion for the US share alone if paid. One journal editor said he recently had to contact around thirty researchers to secure a single reviewer, compared with five to ten emails needed five years ago. Researchers still need peer-reviewed publications for jobs and grants, so most continue engaging with the system despite its flaws, though some, particularly in AI research, are turning to informal channels like blogs to share findings instead, while others call for reform of a process that has only been a universal academic standard for around fifty years.