It is a hot afternoon, and Adanna stares at her computer screen with her heartbeat about to shoot above the roof, her hands trembling as she opens the long-awaited email feedback from a journal she submitted a paper to months back. After six months of waiting, her first manuscript as the lead author had been reviewed, and the reviewers tore apart her work, calling it “unoriginal,” “poorly written,” and “lacking rigour.” Her heart sank as she read the first comment: “This work is fundamentally flawed and shows a basic lack of understanding of the field. The work is disappointing.” Three years of research, countless late nights, and meticulous analysis were all dismissed in two cruel sentences.
Adanna finds herself reflecting on her abilities, career choice, and the value she brings as a researcher. While her feelings are understandable, it’s important to acknowledge that many early career researchers (ECRs) experience similar challenges. This situation highlights the pressing need for open dialogue about mental health concerns within academia, allowing us to better support ECRs as they navigate their professional journeys.
The Unsung Heroes of Academic Publishing
Before we delve into the systemic challenges of peer review, it’s important to celebrate a powerful truth: peer reviewers are the unsung heroes of academia. These dedicated scholars selflessly invest their time, often at the expense of their research, teaching, and personal lives, to evaluate manuscripts for no financial reward. They are motivated by a passion for advancing knowledge, safeguarding the integrity of research, and uplifting their fields. Their invaluable, unpaid contributions form the backbone of scientific publishing, ensuring the quality and reliability of academic literature. Without these committed individuals, the momentum of scientific progress would falter.
There are several definitions of what constitutes an Early Career Researcher (ECR), but for this blog, we will use the definition provided by the Society for Medicine and Population Health. According to this definition, you might consider yourself an ECR if you are an undergraduate or postgraduate student if you are currently pursuing a PhD, or if you have recently completed your highest degree within the last five years, whether working full-time or part-time. Additionally, you may be regarded as an ECR if you are new to this research field.
Peer reviewers are established researchers responsible for evaluating manuscripts submitted to scientific journals. Although they possess expertise in their respective fields, most have not undergone formal training in the manuscript review process. Instead, they acquire their skills through experience, which can sometimes lead them to adopt the harsh criticism they encountered during their early careers.
Where Good Intentions Meet Systemic Challenges
However, this admirable volunteer system has inadvertently created challenges that affect both reviewers and authors. A 2024 article in Frontiers discusses the increasing pressure on the peer review system due to the rapid growth of scientific publications. It highlights that reviewers, who are typically researchers themselves, are under pressure from increasing workload and decreasing time to review, often without financial compensation.
Another study published in PLOS Biology in 2017 looked at the global impact of journal peer review in the biomedical literature. The study discovered that, while the scientific community devotes significant time to peer review, the workload is disproportionately borne by a small group of researchers. This imbalance can cause reviewer fatigue and impact the quality of reviews provided to authors.
The Untrained and Unpaid Reviewers Crisis
The combination of lack of training and unpaid status has created a perfect storm. While some reviewers provide constructive criticism, others seem to view harsh criticism as a rite of passage.
A study published in F1000Research in 2024, highlights the strain placed on the peer review system due to the overwhelming volume of manuscript submissions and the shortage of qualified reviewers. Dr. Seghier argues that these challenges, compounded by the lack of financial compensation for reviewers and insufficient training programs, contribute to inefficiencies and biases in the process. The study also emphasizes the risks posed by untrained reviewers, who may inadvertently introduce hidden biases, ultimately undermining the scientific integrity of publications.
One of the primary causes of the harsh review crisis is the lack of formal training for reviewers. Unlike other professions where training and certification are mandatory, academic reviewing is often learned on the job. Many reviewers, even those with good intentions, have never been taught how to provide constructive and empathetic feedback. As a result, the quality and tone of reviews can vary significantly. Some are thoughtful and helpful, while others are dismissive, overly critical, or even outright hostile.
The issue is compounded by the fact that most reviewers are not compensated for their efforts. Peer review is a time-consuming process that can take hours or even days to complete. Without financial incentives, many reviewers may rush through their evaluations or treat the task as a low priority. This can result in superficial or overly critical feedback, as reviewers may not dedicate the necessary time and care to provide thoughtful and constructive comments.
The Mental Health Toll
The mental health impact of negative reviews on early-career researchers (ECRs) is becoming an increasingly important issue within the academic community. ECRs, who are often trying to establish themselves in a highly competitive field, can experience considerable psychological distress when they receive critical or excessively harsh feedback on their manuscripts. While the peer review process is essential for academic success, negative experiences during this process can erode their confidence and overall mental well-being.
Research has demonstrated that receiving excessively harsh reviews can lead to feelings of anxiety, self-doubt, and frustration, which may contribute to burnout and depression. The emotional impact can be particularly severe for early-career researchers (ECRs), who are still developing their academic identities and may not have the resilience that more experienced researchers possess. Harsh reviews, especially those lacking constructive feedback and focusing instead on personal criticisms or dismissing the researcher’s work, can foster feelings of failure and even contribute to imposter syndrome.
For instance, a study published in Frontiers in Psychiatry highlights how victimization through bullying, including negative or overly critical feedback, can cause trauma, leading to psychological distress and even emotional numbness.
The study highlights the importance of adopting a developmental perspective when addressing the impact of trauma. It emphasizes that such experiences can significantly affect individuals’ mental well-being, particularly in academic and professional settings. The research advocates for a more empathetic and supportive approach to peer review, suggesting that reviewers should be trained not only in technical skills but also in providing feedback that is constructive, supportive, and mindful of the emotional consequences it may have on the recipient.
In extreme cases, the psychological impact of harsh reviews can extend beyond momentary disappointment and resemble symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). ECRs may experience nightmares, intrusive thoughts about their research, and a pervasive fear of failure, which can hinder their ability to perform in other aspects of their academic and personal lives. In some instances, the stress caused by negative reviews has even led ECRs to reconsider their career paths, with some contemplating leaving academia altogether.
The mental health challenges faced by ECRs in response to harsh reviews underscore the need for systemic reforms in the peer review process. Training for reviewers on how to deliver constructive, supportive feedback is crucial, as is addressing the emotional and psychological consequences that come with overly critical or unhelpful reviews. Additionally, creating a more transparent and compassionate peer review system could help mitigate the negative impact on early-career researchers and foster a more supportive academic environment.
For early career researchers, each rejection or harsh review can feel like a career-ending blow. The pressure to publish is immense, and the fear of failure can lead to chronic stress, burnout, and even long-term mental health issues.
Reimagining Peer Review: Building a Better System for All
The current system, while well-intentioned, often falls short of its noble aims. Without formal training, clear guidelines, or institutional support, even the most dedicated reviewers can struggle to provide constructive feedback. This challenge manifests in reviews that can range from superficial to unnecessarily harsh, potentially devastating early career researchers while failing to truly advance scientific discourse.
To enhance peer review for the benefit of science, we need a comprehensive approach that supports both reviewers and authors. Collaboration between universities and journals is essential to create accessible training programs and clear guidelines for best practices. Mentorship programs that pair experienced reviewers with newcomers can ensure consistency in review quality. Providing practical tools for time management and feedback delivery will further improve efficiency and effectiveness.
We must undergo a fundamental cultural shift in our approach to peer review. We must move beyond the false dichotomy between rigorous criticism and supportive feedback. Scientific excellence and human dignity can coexist and often enhance each other. When reviewers view their role as mentors rather than gatekeepers, they not only improve individual manuscripts but also strengthen the entire academic ecosystem.
We need to reimagine peer review as a collaborative process that enhances both science and scientists. By offering reviewers training, recognition, and resources, we empower them to give constructive feedback that advances scientific discourse. Celebrating those who approach peer review with rigor and empathy sets a positive example for future researchers.
Accountability is crucial in the peer review process. Journals should implement a system that allows authors to privately assess the quality of the reviews they receive, providing valuable feedback on the reviewers’ effectiveness. Reviewers who consistently deliver unhelpful or detrimental feedback should be blacklisted, while those who provide high-quality and constructive reviews should be acknowledged and rewarded.
We must confront the challenge of not just fixing a broken system but building a superior one. It is essential to uphold the volunteer spirit of peer review while prioritizing its core mission: to advance human knowledge through meaningful and constructive scientific dialogue.
A Call for Empathy and Change
The harsh reality is that the peer review system, as it currently operates, is failing early career researchers (ECRs). While we should commend the volunteer efforts of reviewers, we must also acknowledge that the absence of formal training, coupled with the high stakes of academic publishing and the fact that most reviewers are unpaid, has created a toxic environment. This situation is driving talented researchers away from academia. However, it doesn’t have to be this way.
We all can relate to Adanna’s story, the trembling hands opening that email, the sinking feeling as cruel words dismiss years of hard work, and the questioning of one’s place in academia. Did she persevere and resubmit her paper? Did she find the strength to continue in research? Or did she, like many others, decide that the emotional toll was too high? We may never know. But what we do know is that right now, countless other Adanna’s are sitting at their desks, hearts racing as they open reviewer feedback, their futures hanging in the balance.
The future of academia is firmly rooted in the next generation of researchers. We cannot allow harsh reviews to stifle their potential before they have a chance to excel. We must embrace a cultural shift that prioritizes kindness, collaboration, and the mental well-being of all researchers. Without this change, how many brilliant minds will we lose? How many Adanna’s will walk away? The choice and the responsibility is ours.
