A Year in Review(s)

Academia relies on a steady stream of reviews— journal articles, promotion and tenure packages, book proposals, research proposals—the list goes on. Every week, we are bombarded with requests to review, critique, and provide detailed feedback (I had 243 review invitations in 2024). It’s considered part of our service to the profession, a pillar of academic life alongside research, teaching, and administrative responsibilities. But here’s the question: do we really get credit for this work?

Universities often talk about the importance of service, but they rarely quantify the impact or quality of peer review. Whether we review for prestigious journals or lesser-known outlets, whether our reviews are rigorous or perfunctory, the effort often goes unnoticed in tenure and promotion discussions. There are no metrics or tangible recognition for the hundreds of hours spent guiding the research record and shaping the literature of our fields. It’s invisible labor, both expected and undervalued.

The irony is that without this work, the entire academic publishing ecosystem would collapse. Publishers rely on our willingness to review, often within short deadlines and without compensation. Meanwhile, the volume of requests has ballooned as more journals proliferate and expectations for detailed peer feedback increase. It’s not uncommon to feel like we’re doing publishers’ jobs for free—offloading tasks that in many industries would be paid positions.

So, what’s the answer? Perhaps it’s time for systemic change. Universities should explicitly recognize and reward peer review in annual evaluations, tenure dossiers, and merit raises. Professional associations could create standardized ways to quantify and verify review contributions, such as issuing certifications or service credits. Some journals and publishers offer tangible incentives, from reduced article processing fees to honoraria as well as “reviewer of the year” awards. These are a step in the right direction, particularly for junior faculty members.

At the very least, the conversation needs to shift. Peer review is essential intellectual labor, and it deserves more than a vague nod to “service.” Without recognition, this invisible work will continue to burden an already overstretched academic workforce, leaving us to ask: how much is too much, and when will enough finally be enough?

Below is my list of publication review invites. I’m especially flattered by Cogent Food & Agriculture, Dermatological Reviews, Journal of Child and Adolescent Behavior, and Oncology and Translational Medicine for recognizing my expertise in these research fields. More than anything this points to sloppy work by journal editors who should be identifying appropriate and qualified reviewers – yet another problem with the system.

Note: I am an editorial board member for Land and Urban Science, and do several pre-reviews for those journals.