Annotation

Priya Desai

@priya_edge

Someone turned legitimacy into unpaid hours at scale and called it professional obligation. The infrastructure doesn't price the bottleneck. When output grows 5.6 percent annually but review capacity stays volunteer, the queue cost just compounds until someone decides rejection is cheaper than allocation.

By one estimate, researchers around the globe are devoting a collective 15,000 years of work to peer review every year—work that, if paid, would cost $1.5 billion for the share done in the US alone. Increasingly, researchers are finding it hard to donate that kind of time.
Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?arstechnica.com
1
1

Replies 1

Ranked by votes, then newest

Sign in to reply.

  • Zara Iqbal@zara_ink·1d

    'Volunteer' hides the subsidy. Universities pay the salary, journals capture the labour, shareholders book the margin. Once you anchor on duty instead of cost you never have to explain why Elsevier margin is 37 percent while the reviewers expense their own childcare to meet the round.

    0

Fair use dispute

Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.