Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-7vssv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-05T22:17:29.495Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The long wait: unpacking the causes behind peer review delays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2025

Sachin Talwar Open the ORCID record for Sachin Talwar [Opens in a new window]  and
Vishal Vinayak Bhende Open the ORCID record for Vishal Vinayak Bhende [Opens in a new window]
Sachin Talwar*
Affiliation:
Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
Vishal Vinayak Bhende
Affiliation:
Pediatric Cardiac Surgery, Bhanubhai and Madhuben Patel Cardiac Centre, Shree Krishna Hospital, Bhaikaka University, Karamsad, India
*
Corresponding author: Sachin Talwar; Email: drtalwarofficial@proton.me
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The peer review process is fundamental to academic publishing, guaranteeing the integrity and quality of the research upon which we depend. However, it is also infamous for its sluggishness—occasionally excruciatingly so. For numerous authors, the prolonged wait for feedback on their articles might seem interminable, particularly when they are enthusiastic about disseminating innovative discoveries to the public. But why exactly does peer review take so long? The reasons are complex and multifaceted, involving challenges faced by editors, reviewers, and authors alike. By understanding these challenges, we can start to see the bigger picture and work towards solutions that might speed things up.

“Patience requires knowing not just the cost of delay, but also the benefit of delay”

“The two most powerful warriors are patience and time.”-Leo Tolstoy

“Lost time is never found again.” - Benjamin Franklin

Keywords

Article submission processeditor engagementpeer reviewpeer review shortcomingsresearch evaluation

Information

Type
Commentaries
Information
Cardiology in the Young , First View , pp. 1 - 5
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Williams, MJ. The peer review process from an editor’s point of view. Small GTPases 2010; 1: 77. DOI: 10.4161/sgtp.1.2.15097.10.4161/sgtp.1.2.15097CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ho, TBL. How to Survive Peer Review. J R Soc Med 2002; 95: 571–572, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1279266/.10.1177/014107680209501121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipworth, W. Beyond the consulting room: intuition and intersubjectivity in journal peer review. Australas Psychiatry 2009; 17: 331–334. DOI: 10.1080/10398560902721614.10.1080/10398560902721614CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovrenčić, S, Proceedings of the 22nd Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems, Varaždin, Croatia, 2011, 21-23 September 2011, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272684945_Proceedings_of_the_22nd_Central_European_Conference_on_Information_and_Intelligent_Systems_Varazdin_Croatia_21-23_September_2011.Google Scholar
Lovejoy, TI, Revenson, TA, France, CR. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Ann Behav Med 2011; 42: 1–13. DOI: 10.1007/s12160-011-9269-x.10.1007/s12160-011-9269-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartley, J. Improving the clarity of journal abstracts in psychology: the case for structure. Sci Commun 2003; 24: 366–379. DOI: 10.1177/1075547002250301.10.1177/1075547002250301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 1999; 318: 4–5. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4.10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Editorial freedom. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. BMJ 1988; 297: 1182. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.297.6657.1182.10.1136/bmj.297.6657.1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reviewing refereeing. Nat Cell Biol 2011; 13: 109. DOI: 10.1038/ncb0211-109.10.1038/ncb0211-109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothwell, PM, Martyn, CN. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 2000; 123: 1964–1969. DOI: 10.1093/brain/123.9.1964.10.1093/brain/123.9.1964CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, JV, Editorial overkill. Bull Psychon Soc 1982; 19: 271–274. DOI: 10.3758/BF03330255.10.3758/BF03330255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, DP. Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors. Account Res 2010; 17: 130–145. DOI: 10.1080/08989621003791945.10.1080/08989621003791945CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bacchetti, P. Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem. BMJ 2002; 324: 1271–1273. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7348.1271.10.1136/bmj.324.7348.1271CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shankar, PR. An urgent need to strengthen medical journals in South Asia. Australasian Med J 2011; 4: 628–630. DOI: 10.4066/AMJ.2011.1078.10.4066/AMJ.2011.1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drubin, DG. Any jackass can trash a manuscript, but it takes good scholarship to create one (how MBoC promotes civil and constructive peer review). Mol Biol Cell [Editorial] 2011; 22: 525–527.10.1091/mbc.e11-01-0002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benos, DJ, Kirk, KL, Hall, JE. How to review a paper. Adv Physiol Educ 2003; 27: 47–52. DOI: 10.1152/advan.00057.2002.10.1152/advan.00057.2002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cornelius, JL. Reviewing the review process: identifying sources of delay. Australas Med J 2012; 5: 26–29. DOI: 10.4066/AMJ.2012.1165.Google ScholarPubMed
Winck, JC, Fonseca, JA, Azevedo, LF, Wedzicha, JA. To publish or perish: how to review a manuscript. Rev Port Pneumol 2011; 17: 96–103. DOI: 10.1016/s0873-2159(11)70022-8.10.1016/S0873-2159(11)70022-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiwa, M, Oberoi, D, Oberoi, E, et al. Writing for publication - raising standards at the AMJ. Australas Med J 2011; 4: 225–228. DOI: 10.4066/AMJ.2011.783.10.4066/AMJ.2011.783CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, C. Editor as good steward of manuscript submissions: culture, tone, and procedures |. J Scholarly Publ, 2024; 36: 34–42. DOI: 10.1353/SCP.2004.0027. https://utppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3138/jsp.36.1.34.Google Scholar
Integranxt. The long wait: unpacking the causes behind peer review delays [Internet]. Integranxt Blog; 2023 [cited 2025 Apr 30]. Available from: https://integranxt.com/blog/the-long-wait-unpacking-the-causes-behind-peer-review-delays/.Google Scholar
Gasparyan, AY, Kitas, GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J 2012; 53: 386–389. DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386.10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leopold, SS. Editorial: peer review and the editorial process--a look behind the curtain. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 1–3. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-4031-x.10.1007/s11999-014-4031-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosengaard, LO, Andersen, MZ, Rosenberg, J, Fonnes, S. Several methods for assessing research waste in reviews with a systematic search: a scoping review. PeerJ 2024;12: e18466. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18466.10.7717/peerj.18466CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shah, PS, Acharya, G. Artificial intelligence/machine learning and journalology: challenges and opportunities. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2024; 103: 196–198. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14772.10.1111/aogs.14772CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doskaliuk, B, Zimba, O, Yessirkepov, M, Klishch, I, Yatsyshyn, R. Artificial intelligence in peer review: enhancing efficiency while preserving integrity. J Korean Med Sci 2025; 40: e92. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e92.10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C, Marcus, A, Oransky, I. Publishing: the peer-review scam. Nature 2014; 515: 480–482. DOI: 10.1038/515480a.10.1038/515480aCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, J, Dagan, K, Youngberg, M, Kaufman, T, Radding, J. A survey of AI tools in library tech: accelerating into and unlocking streamlined enhanced convenient empowering game-changers. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship 2025 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/1941126X.2025.2497738.10.1080/1941126X.2025.2497738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kankanhalli, A. Peer review in the age of generative AI. J Assoc Inf Syst 2024; 25: 76–84. DOI: 10.17705/1jais.00865. https://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol25/iss1/9 Google Scholar
Andersen, MZ, Fonnes, S, Rosenberg, J. Time from submission to publication varied widely for biomedical journals: a systematic review. Curr Med Res Opin 2021; 37: 985–993. DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2021.1905622.10.1080/03007995.2021.1905622CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Checco, A, Bracciale, L, Loreti, P, et al. AI-assisted peer review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 2021; 8: 25. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-00703-8.10.1057/s41599-020-00703-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, X, Zhang, Y. Reviewer assignment algorithms for peer review automation: a survey. Inform Process Manag 2022; 59: 103028. DOI: 10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103028.10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malički, M, Mehmani, B. Structured peer review: pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals. PeerJ 2024; 12: e17514. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.17514.10.7717/peerj.17514CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kusumoto, FM, Bittl, JA, Creager, MA, et al. Challenges and Controversies in Peer Review: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J Am Coll Cardiol 2023; 82: 2054–2062. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2023.08.056.10.1016/j.jacc.2023.08.056CrossRefGoogle Scholar