Open-Access Publishing and the Reviewer Crisis: Rethinking Incentives for Quality Peer Review

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0

Abstract

Open-access journals often charge article publication fees, typically amounting to thousands of USD or Euros. Fee waivers are generally limited to manuscripts from low-income countries. The quality of published manuscripts, whether in open-access or APC-based journals, depends heavily on external reviewers and associated editors. Their critical role ensures originality, rigorous methodology, and impactful research. However, reviewers receive minimal rewards, such as a certificate, acknowledgment, or discounts on future publications. These incentives are usually insufficient to attract senior researchers, who frequently decline the numerous review requests they receive daily. As a result, the task often falls to junior researchers with fewer publications and limited experience in high-impact research. This lack of adequate recognition and tangible benefits for reviewers poses challenges in maintaining high-quality peer review standards. Considering the significant revenue journals earn from APCs, particularly in prestigious gold open-access models, offering substantial financial incentives to reviewers could be a prudent strategy. Such measures would encourage senior experts to contribute their time and expertise, ensuring a more rigorous and high-quality review process.
Full text 621 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
There is a newer version available for this {{ publicationType }}. View latest version {{ publication.field_name }} {{ publication.subfield_name }} Copyright: © {{ publicationYear }} {{ publication.presentation_authors[0].full_name + (publication.presentation_authors.length > 1 ? ' et al' : '') }}. This is an open access publication distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Check the {{ publicationType | capitalize }} Source for copyright and license information. Listen on

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-22T02:00:06.705733+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0