Scientific Publishing Without Gatekeeping: Radical Reforms in Academic Publishing

In 2023, eLife introduced a “publish, then review” model, fundamentally transforming its editorial and peer review process. This innovative system replaces the traditional gatekeeping approach, in which manuscripts were either accepted or rejected prior to publication. Under the new model, submissions that pass an initial editorial triage are published directly as preprints and subsequently subjected to open, public peer review. 

A recent study conducted by three German researchers examined the implications of this reform for eLife’s editorial outcomes. Their analysis revealed only minimal differences between manuscripts reviewed under the traditional system and those processed under the new “publish, then review” model. Nonetheless, one of their recommendations was to enhance the robustness of the review process by increasing the number of reviewers per manuscript—from the current average of 2.7 to approximately three or four. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-025-05422-y#Sec15

However, this proposal raises important concerns. The global peer review system is under significant strain, driven by structural challenges inherent to academia itself. Chief among these are widespread reviewer fatigue—caused by the growing volume of manuscript submissions—and the persistent undervaluation of peer review as a meaningful scholarly contribution. (Fox et al., 2017; Ellwanger et al., 2020; Severin & Chataway, 2021; Horta & Jung, 2024; Beecher & Wang, 2025). Expanding the number of required reviewers per paper, without addressing these underlying structural problems, could exacerbate the existing shortage.

One potential remedy, as proposed in an article published by Times Higher Education, is to introduce a more radical and accountability-based approach: journals could adopt a policy of automatically rejecting submissions from authors who consistently publish substantially more papers than the number of peer reviews they contribute. Such a measure would help realign incentives, fostering a more equitable distribution of the reviewing burden while reinforcing peer review as a collective academic responsibility. https://pacheco-torgal.blogspot.com/2021/11/a-radical-solution-to-solve-crisis-in.html

Declaration of Competing Interests — My reviewing activity averages about 90 papers per year, a volume confirmed by Web of Science reviewer records.

Update after 3 days — Foreign readers from Singapore (39%), Hong Kong (23%), and the US (2%) show the greatest interest in this post.