Back

Expanded implementation of Fast & Fair paid peer review reduces time to first decision without reducing review quality in a biology journal

Gorelick, D. A.; Clark, A.

2026-06-03 scientific communication and education
10.64898/2026.06.02.729548 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Traditional peer review is often slowed by delays in identifying willing reviewers and waiting for completed review reports. In a 2024 pilot on the journal Biology Open, we showed that Fast & Fair peer review, which uses pre-contracted paid reviewers and a structured editorial timeline, could deliver rapid, high-quality peer. Here, we report the expanded implementation of Fast & Fair at Biology Open in 2025. From 1 April 2025 onward, all direct submissions to the journal were considered for Fast & Fair peer review unless appropriate pre-contracted reviewer expertise was unavailable. Reviewers were paid {pound}220 per manuscript only if they completed the review on time, and the review met editorial quality expectations. Among peer-reviewed manuscripts submitted in 2025, Fast & Fair reduced time to first decision with reviews from a mean of 37.7 working days under conventional peer review to 5.5 working days. Reviewer commitment also improved. Fast & Fair invitations were accepted more often than conventional invitations (67% versus 23%), had lower nonresponse (13% versus 39%), and had higher completion among accepted invitations (98% versus 87%). Faster review was not associated with reduced review quality. Handling editors scored each review for usefulness in editorial decision-making. Fast & Fair produced fewer low-scoring reports than conventional peer review. Editorial behavior was also unchanged, with similar first-decision profiles and final acceptance rates (59% versus 61%). While financial sustainability remains to be tested at scale, the Fast & Fair model addresses a major bottleneck in traditional peer review by replacing ad hoc reviewer recruitment with conditional compensation, predefined quality standards and a strict editorial timeline.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
39.7%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.2%
3
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 13%
6.4%
5
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.8%
6
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.6%
7
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.9%
8
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.7%
9
FEBS Letters
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
10
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
11
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.2%
12
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.1%
13
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
14
Journal of Cell Biology
333 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
15
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
16
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
17
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
18
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
19
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
20
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Marine Science
55 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
22
Nature Biotechnology
147 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
23
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 66%
0.6%
24
FASEB BioAdvances
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
25
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
171 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%