Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsA 2018 investigation found that peer-review work was unevenly distributed across the regions it compared, while editors faced difficulty securing completed reviews. Its findings raised a warning about reviewer workload and recruitment—but did not establish that fatigue alone was driving the problem.
What did the 2018 investigation examine?
Publons released its Global State of Peer Review 2018 report in September 2018, in collaboration with ScholarOne and Web of Science. It drew on a survey of over 11,800 researchers and data from Publons, ScholarOne, and Web of Science. The report asked who performs peer review, how efficient the process is, what is known about review quality, and what its future might hold. The report’s findings were also covered by Nature.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
This was a report-era investigation, not a measurement of conditions in 2026. Its survey should not be read as a random sample representative of every researcher worldwide. The report compared groups it called “established” and “emerging” regions, using its own historical definitions.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →What did the report find about regional review workloads?
For every manuscript submitted, researchers in the report’s established regions generated an average of 1.95 reviews; those in its emerging regions generated 0.66. The gap suggests that review contributions were geographically uneven relative to submission demand. Publons’ report defined the established group as the USA, Germany, Italy, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, the UK, and Japan. Its emerging group comprised China, Brazil, Turkey, India, Iran, South Korea, Malaysia, and Poland.
These are the report’s categories, not universal or current classifications. The regional averages also do not show that every researcher in one group carried a heavy burden or that every editor faced the same recruitment difficulties. Nature summarized the finding as researchers in developed countries writing nearly two reviews per paper they submitted—almost three times the rate for researchers in emerging nations. The report separately noted that editors had to invite more researchers to secure each review; that measure is related to, but distinct from, reviews per submission.
Does the evidence show that reviewer fatigue was growing?
The report raised concern about recruitment and workload, but “reviewer fatigue” should not be treated as a proven single cause of difficulty obtaining reviews. Separate studies offer useful context, although their results concern particular journals and disciplines rather than a global trend.
Ecology and evolution journals
A 2017 study of six ecology and evolution journals examined invitation outcomes from 2003 through 2015. At four of the six journals, the average share of invitations that led to a submitted review fell from 56% in 2003 to 37% in 2015. The authors found that a scholar’s probability of accepting an invitation declined as the number of invitations they received in a year increased. However, average invitations per prospective reviewer and the proportion invited more than once a year did not change much. Their conclusion was that “reviewer fatigue is not likely the primary explanation for this decline.” The study’s abstract describes this journal-specific analysis.
American Political Science Review
A 2015 analysis of American Political Science Review invitations issued in 2013 found that 14.1% of declines cited “too many requests,” while 24.8% cited being “too busy.” Together, those categories accounted for 38.9% of declines. The authors cautioned that combining them likely overstates fatigue, while the narrower “too many requests” category may understate it. Other reasons included conflicts of interest, insufficient expertise, having reviewed the paper before, travel, administrative duties, and personal circumstances. The authors’ analysis covers one journal and one year, not the whole publishing system.
How efficient did researchers find peer review?
About one-third of surveyed researchers were dissatisfied with the time taken to review a manuscript, according to Chemistry World’s 2018 coverage. That finding reflects respondents’ views at the time; it does not show that fatigue caused delays. Invitation declines can reflect workload, but also expertise, conflicts, prior involvement, travel, administrative commitments, or personal circumstances.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Why did the report emphasize regional fairness?
In the report’s foreword, Publons cofounder Andrew Preston argued that the regional imbalance harms the development of non-Western researchers. He said fewer invitations mean fewer opportunities to see emerging research trends, learn what journals expect in a manuscript, build connections with editors, and develop critical-analysis skills. This is Preston’s interpretation of the consequences of the disparity, not an independently established causal finding in the figures above.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- 【Book Lovers Gift】 Our book review notepad is designed with ample space for readers to jot down their thoughts, impressions, and critiques, making it the perfect companion for any book lover
- 【Organized Layout】 The pages are thoughtfully laid out with sections for summarizing the plot, character analysis, world building, spice, ending, etc. Ensuring that your book reviews are well-structured and comprehensive
- 【High-Quality Materials】 Crafted from strong paper materials, the book review notepad is built to last, allowing you to preserve your literary insights for years to come
- 【Portable and Stylish】 Size(8*5inches),with a compact size and an attractive design, this notepad set is both portable and stylish, making it easy to carry around and use wherever your reading journey takes you
- 【Perfect for Any Reader】 This reading journal includes 50 book review pages, making it perfect for avid readers who want to keep track of their reading and share their thoughts with others. It is an ideal gift for book lovers and readers of all ages. The perfect gift for Christmas, New Year, back to school, birthday
Rank #4
- Keep track of everything from attendance to test scores
- Spiral bound
- Measures 8-1/2" x 11"
What should readers take from the warning?
- The investigation describes conditions reported in 2018; it is not a current global count of reviewer fatigue.
- It found a substantial regional imbalance in reviews relative to submissions within its own established/emerging grouping.
- Difficulty recruiting reviewers and declining invitation-to-review rates were concerns, but the available studies do not establish fatigue as their sole or primary cause.
- Declining a review can reflect professional constraints, fit, expertise, or personal circumstances as well as workload.
- The studies differ by era, discipline, journal, and method; their percentages should not be combined into a single global trend.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
