Logo image
Back
Bot-Tastic: Overload Burden of Unsolicited Peer Review Requests, Field of Expertise, and Narrative Hot-Takes
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Bot-Tastic: Overload Burden of Unsolicited Peer Review Requests, Field of Expertise, and Narrative Hot-Takes

Shan W Liu, Timothy Horeczko, Jaime Jordan, Samuel O Clarke, Daniel P Runde and Wendy C Coates
Academic emergency medicine, Vol.33(3), e70260
03/2026
DOI: 10.1111/acem.70260
PMID: 41839801

View Online

Abstract

Importance Unsolicited peer review requests have increased with the expansion of academic publishing, raising concerns about reviewer fatigue. Peer review is a critical component in disseminating scientific discovery requiring time and expertise, often uncompensated. Objective We sought to quantify and analyze characteristics of the review solicitation burden on a group of senior faculty. Methods We conducted a prospective mixed-methods study of 6 senior academic physicians who are peer reviewers and editors. Each participant monitored their email inboxes (9/1–12/13, 2024) for peer review requests. We collected solicitation date, journal name, discipline, reviewer's existing relationship to journal, content relevance, response to request, immediate Plutchik Basic Emotions reaction, narrative comments, using hermeneutic phenomenology. We calculated descriptive statistics and performed a thematic analysis with a constructivist paradigm of narrative comments. Results Participants (5 institutions, 3 males) received 139 solicitations. Over half (52.5%, 73) were requests from a journal with whom the physician had no or unknown previous contact. Less than 1/3 of solicitations were directly relevant (28.1%, 39); 43.2% (60) partially relevant; 28.8% (40) irrelevant. Only 2.3% (3) of requests were accepted; 55.4% (77) were declined and 42.4% (59) were ignored. Of the Plutchik Basic Emotions, most were surprised (36%, 48) or disgusted (31%, 41). Qualitative analysis identified four themes: (1) issues with review process/journal quality, (2) time/effort demands, (3) relevancy to expertise, (4) technology/administrative barriers. Conclusions Academic faculty received copious peer review requests and declined or ignored many, citing frustration, surprise or disgust. Editors should optimize the review request process to avoid reviewer burnout.
 Faculty, Medical Female Humans Male Narration Peer Review Peer Review, Research Prospective Studies

Details

Metrics

1 Record Views
Logo image