Abstract

Peer review of manuscripts is labour-intensive and time-consuming. Individual reviewers often feel themselves overburdened with the amount of reviewing they are requested to do. Aiming to explore how stakeholder groups perceive reviewing burden and what they believe to be the causes of a potential overburdening of reviewers, we conducted focus groups with early-, mid-, and senior career scholars, editors, and publishers. By means of a thematic analysis, we aimed to identify the causes of overburdening of reviewers. First, we show that, across disciplines and roles, stakeholders believed that the reviewing workload has become so enormous that the academic community is no longer able to supply the reviewing resources necessary to address its demand for peer review. Second, the reviewing workload is distributed unequally across the academic community, thereby overwhelming small groups of scholars. Third, stakeholders believed the overburdening of reviewers to be caused by (i) an increase in manuscript submissions; (ii) insufficient editorial triage; (iii) a lack of reviewing instructions; (iv) difficulties in recruiting reviewers; (v) inefficiencies in manuscript handling and (vi) a lack of institutionalisation of peer review. These themes were assumed to mutually reinforce each other and to relate to an inadequate incentive structure in academia that favours publications over peer review. In order to alleviate reviewing burden, a holistic approach is required that addresses both the increased demand for and the insufficient supply of reviewing resources.