Back

Fast & Fair peer review: a pilot study demonstrating feasibility of rapid, high-quality peer review in a biology journal

Gorelick, D. A.; Clark, A.

2025-03-19 scientific communication and education Community evaluation
10.1101/2025.03.18.644032 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Traditional peer review is slow, often delayed by the time-consuming process of identifying reviewers and lengthy review turnaround times. This study tests the feasibility of the Fast & Fair peer review initiative by evaluating whether we could implement and adhere to a structured timeline for rapid peer review at Biology Open. A 6-month pilot conducted from July to December 2024 evaluated a structured workflow with pre-contracted reviewers under two payment models: a freelance model or a retainer model. All manuscripts assigned to two of the journals ten academic editors were included in the Fast & Fair peer review initiative experiment. A structured editorial time-line ensured that all manuscripts received reviews and first decisions within 7 business days. The results demonstrated that 100% of Fast & Fair peer review initiative manuscripts met the turnaround target, with a mean of 4.6 business days (n=20 manuscripts). Review quality was maintained, as indicated by assessments by academic editors. The freelancer model outperformed retainers in cost-effectiveness. These findings suggest that the Fast & Fair peer review initiative is feasible and does not compromise review quality. While scalability remains to be tested, the initiative eliminates a major bottleneck in traditional peer review by streamlining reviewer identification and enforcing a strict editorial timeline.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.