








































5SIUJ.ORG SIUJ  •  Volume 3, Number 1  •  January 2022

This is an open access article under the terms of a license that permits non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.  
© 2022 The Authors. Société Internationale d'Urologie Journal, published by the Société Internationale d'Urologie, Canada.

EDITORIAL

Our Billion-Dollar Donation  
to the Publishing Industry
Peter C. Black, Editor-in-Chief

Soc Int Urol J.2021;3(1):5–6

DOI: 10.48083/ROGE9523

Critical issues related to the current system of peer 
review have been raised in a recent paper by Aczel et al. 
on the cost of peer review[1]. The authors of this analysis 
estimated that 9.5 million manuscripts are submitted for 
peer review in one year, requiring 21.8 million reviews. 
If each reviewer requires 6 hours per review (a very 
generous estimate from the urologic perspective), that 
adds up to 130 million reviewer hours in one year, which 
is equivalent to 15 000 years of work. Applying estimated 
average salaries to this time requirement, the cost adds 
up to $1.5 billion for the US, $626 million for China, and 
$391 million for the UK in one year. While the accuracy 
of the different numbers can be debated, the conclusion 
is very clear: we as a scientific community invest an 
extraordinary amount of time and effort in a peer review 
process that lines the pockets of the large publishing 
houses.

T he response to t his a r t icle on socia l med ia 
demonstrated differing perspectives on this issue. 
The publishing industry was notably absent from the 
conversation. Most scientists see the putative cost of 
peer review as a sign of a flawed system, but others have 
been less critical. Some scientists make the point that 
this is “part of our job,” regardless of whether or not it is 
written into our contracts. The cost does not necessarily 
fall on the reviewer but instead on the university or 
other large institution paying the reviewer’s salary, 
which in turn may come from a public source. Many 
researchers, however, are undertaking peer reviews on 
their own time, and this is perhaps even more common 
with clinicians reviewing for publications in fields like 
urology. Some reviewers may not actually have the 
benefit of an institutional salary but still perform peer 
review. At the same time institutions will not necessarily 
be interested in seeking compensation for the peer 
review their faculty members are providing, since their 
priority is to facilitate dissemination of the results of 
scientific research.

The main driving force for the current peer review 
model is the notion that we all gain from the peer review 
services provided by others when we publish ourselves, 

so we feel an obligation to give back. Academics consider 
this a service to the scientific community, although the 
burden of peer review is not distributed equitably, which 
increases the burden on individual reviewers. I am often 
surprised by the unwillingness of actively publishing 
young investigators in our field to provide peer review. 
Some clearly feel more of an obligation to give back 
than others, while others perhaps more readily see peer 
review as an opportunity, and still others probably are 
just less likely to say no when asked to do something. The 
bottom line is that the publishing industry is profiting 
enormously from our doing what most of us consider to 
be a necessary service.

Peer review activities are also underappreciated in the 
academic setting. We often see in the curriculum vitae of 
researchers a simple indication of the journals for which 
they have reviewed, but without any quantification of 
the number of reviews over a defined period of time, 
and no metric on the quality of reviews. David Smith  
(@DVSneuro), Assistant Professor in Psychology at 
Temple University, suggested on Twitter that peer review 
should be captured with a metric similar to the h-index 
for publishing (Google Scholar).

Payment of reviewers for their peer review is not an 
optimal solution to the problem. This would eat into 
publishers’ profits, unless the cost were simply defrayed 
by higher subscription fees. However, it would impair 
the ability of smaller journals to compete, and it would 
make diamond open access impossible. Diamond open 
access is defined by authors paying nothing to publish 
while retaining copyright for their work and readers 
being able to access the content without charge.

It is important to highlight the benefits peer review offers 
the reviewer. Peer review is an essential component 
of the research process, and I have always been an 
advocate of urologists conducting peer review. Some 
of the benefits are clear: it improves critical thinking, 
enhances writing skills, provides early exposure to the 
latest science, makes junior investigators more visible to 
editors, and allows reviewers to learn from each other.

http://SIUJ.org
mailto:editorinchief%40siuj.org?subject=SIUJ
https://twitter.com/dvsneuro


6 SIUJ  •  Volume 3, Number 1  •  January 2022 SIUJ.ORG

EDITORIAL

An article like the one by Aczel et al. has the potential 
to stir discussion and trigger cries of dismay about the 
current system, but the important question is how we 
can rectify the issue[1]. Aczel et al. provide insight into 
innovative measures that could reduce the cost and 
increase the value of peer review. Open peer review, 
for example, at least makes the review available to the 
greater community, which adds value but does not 
diminish the financial impact of the current model.

The problem is not the peer review–the problem lies in 
the profit margins of the publishers. As a community we 

need to re-think the publishing models. Open access is 
important, but as long as authors are paying publication 
fees, the authors and the reviewers are still providing 
the product that is making the publishers wealthy. Is 
diamond open access the key? As editor-in-chief of 
a diamond open access journal, my bias is clear. But 
should we as a field not be making a concerted effort to 
separate ourselves from the publishing companies and 
move towards this publishing model?

Reference

1. Aczel B, Szaszi B, Holcombe AO. A billion-dollar donation: estimating 
the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Res Integr Peer 
Rev.2021 Nov 14;6(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2

http://SIUJ.org

