Paying reviewers led to faster first editorial decisions and higher-quality reviews in a trial at the journal Biology Open.Credit: Phimwilai Kitsuriya/Getty
Science relies on peer review, but the process can drag. To fix this, in July 2024, the journal Biology Open trialled something unconventional: paying their reviewers.
In the six-month experiment, reviewers who within four working days delivered a report that their handling editor considered good quality were paid £220 (US$290) per manuscript.
The scheme, known as Fast & Fair, was so successful1 that the journal never looked back. Earlier this month, results of the first 18 months of operations were reported in a preprint2.
Paying reviewers not only led to faster first editorial decisions — an average of 5.5 working days, down from nearly 38 for unpaid reviews (see ‘Paying peer reviewers speeds up editorial decision time) — but review quality, as judged by handling editors on the basis of helpfulness in making an editorial decision, went up (see ‘Fast and paid peer review did not affect editorial decisions’).
Nature spoke with developmental biologist and toxicologist Daniel Gorelick, at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, who has been serving as Biology Open’s editor-in-chief since July 2023.
How did the idea of Fast & Fair peer review come about?
As an active scientist, I’ve always been frustrated with some elements of peer review. It takes longer than it should. And often, the reviews are not high-quality enough to improve the paper.
And I thought that one way to fix that would be to pay peer reviewers because, honestly, it seemed obvious. People get paid to do a job, and there’s evidence3 from economic studies showing that incentives like money can improve performance. So, I figured, why not try this with peer review?
How does Fast & Fair peer review work in practice?
It’s easy to have the idea of paying peer reviewers. The hard part was the execution. First, we designed an experiment that would test the hypothesis that paying peer reviewers would work — without pulling out our hair, losing a ton of money or going bankrupt.
One key thing was having a database of pre-contracted peer reviewers before any manuscript was sent for peer review. We created a contract that researchers must agree to in order to take part. When you get a review request, you have one business day to accept or decline the invitation. Of course, you can decline for any reason. But if you agree to do the review, you have four working days to submit it. If you don’t meet that deadline, or the review is deemed not useful by the editor handling the manuscript, then you’re not paid.
I think that part really set this experiment apart from other experiments in the past, where there were no stipulations on quality or turnaround.
We tested this experiment for six months, starting in July 2024, with 20 submissions handled by two of our ten academic editors. Once we saw that data from the pilot confirmed that it was successful1, we extended the experiment in April 2025 to all ten academic editors. And the only exceptions are when we don’t have pre-contracted reviewers with the requisite expertise to review the manuscripts.
In these rare cases, we give the authors the choice between either submitting their manuscript to another journal (no hard feelings) or shuttling it through conventional peer review. If we can’t find reviewers with the appropriate expertise, we’re not going to cut corners just because we want to meet a seven-day turnaround time. We will never, ever sacrifice rigour for speed.
How do you choose the paid peer reviewers?
When researchers apply to become paid reviewers for Biology Open, we screen their CVs and check whether they’re legitimate and have peer-review experience. We currently have 500 pre-contracted reviewers from all over the world. Ideally, what I envision is a system where reviewer applicants undertake a manuscript-reviewing test. And we’d review that review, so if it scored high enough, we’d hire them.
How is Fast & Fair peer review funded?
The scheme is funded by the journal’s publisher, The Company of Biologists, which is a non-profit charitable organization based in Cambridge, UK. We evaluate the scheme every year. We’re approved to go through the end of calendar year 2026 at this point. Beyond that, I will have to make the case that this deserves to go on another year and meet with the publisher, who will make that decision.
