A new preprint published on MetaArXiv reveals the emergence of a commercial market for academic peer review, in which third-party firms pay researchers to assess journal manuscripts. The study, led by social scientist Amna Pottarath of Radboud University in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, identified approximately 1,000 online advertisements offering “freelance” peer-reviewer positions across various job recruitment platforms.
Traditionally, peer review has been considered a voluntary component of academic service. However, Pottarath notes that a surge in manuscript submissions has created significant pressure on journal editors to find willing reviewers, often leading to prolonged wait times. To address this, some publishers are now outsourcing the peer-review process to external companies.
The research team manually scraped these advertisements from platforms such as LinkedIn and corporate websites. The postings typically required applicants to have more than eight publications in a relevant field within the past decade, as well as prior experience in peer review. Applicants were also asked to disclose their full names and institutional affiliations to the publishers.
Pottarath’s team interviewed five working and retired researchers from India, Spain, and the United Kingdom who had participated in these engagements. The interviewees described being allocated manuscripts after passing background checks that verified their scientific expertise. Most reported receiving payments of between €30 and €40 (approximately US$35–45) for each review. While some reviewers had two to three days to complete their assessments, others reported being given as little as 24 hours to submit their reports.
One company featured in the study listed over 10,000 registered freelance reviewers, with 5,669 marked as “active.” For this particular firm, compensation was linked to both the speed and the quality of the review, with ratings determined by the receiving journal’s editors.
Although the study does not disclose the names of the specific companies or identify which journals use their services, it highlights a lack of transparency in this new model. Daniel Gorelick, editor-in-chief of the journal _Biology Open_, which pays reviewers for rapid, high-quality reports, emphasizes that any financial incentives must be implemented in a transparent and accountable manner to ensure that review quality remains the top priority.
The findings suggest that the externalization of peer review is expanding, prompting further debate among the academic community regarding the ethics and implications of monetizing a fundamental aspect of scientific publishing.
Leave a Reply