A study on HPV vaccine mandates highlights the growing challenges facing peer review. Jason Semprini’s research on vaccine policies was rejected after a reviewer misunderstood its focus, illustrating the strain on the system. Semprini, a health economist at Des Moines University, noted the frustration of seeing his work held up due to a reviewer’s misinterpretation. This experience is not unique, as researchers across disciplines report similar difficulties. Semprini said, “It’s frustrating to see my work held up because a reviewer didn’t read it carefully.”
The peer review system is under increasing pressure as the number of research papers has risen sharply. According to data, the number of papers indexed in Scopus and Web of Science has been growing at a rate of 5.6 percent annually. Researchers globally are estimated to devote 15,000 years of work to peer review each year, costing $1.5 billion annually if paid in the U.S. alone. Editors are now struggling to find qualified reviewers, with some having to email dozens of researchers to secure a single reviewer. Steven Mack, an editor for Human Immunology, said, “I struggle like anything to get peer reviewers.”
Historians trace the origins of peer review to the 1970s, when the National Science Foundation used external reviewers to justify its funding decisions during an economic downturn. This practice became a cornerstone of science, helping to legitimize research. Today, peer review is standard, but the system is struggling to keep up with the volume of submissions. Researchers are increasingly turning to informal methods like blogs to share findings, especially in AI research. “Peer review is the bedrock of science,” Semprini said, “but at this moment, it’s not standing strong.”
Source: arstechnica
