The call for a peer review reform in academic publishing is long needed.

For decades, peer review has stood as the gatekeeper of scientific credibility — but today, it’s a process almost universally criticized by the very people it’s meant to serve. Authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers alike voice deep dissatisfaction. Despite countless patchwork fixes, the system remains flawed, slow, and in many cases, unfair.

At ReviewPRO, we believe it’s time for bold, systemic change i.e. a wholesome peer review reform in academic publishing. We’re building a peer-review model that meets the needs of every stakeholder in academic publishing, aligning incentives, restoring trust, and accelerating scientific progress.

---

What’s Broken? A Closer Look at the Pain Points

Authors: Overlooked, Undervalued, and Left in the Dark

• Opaque desk rejections without clear explanations – the process is slow and not straightforward
• Unreliable reviews, often rushed, superficial, or outright dismissive – the quality of the review is random like playing a game of dice
• Hidden biases or subtle conflicts of interest that exclude certain voices from the conversation and/or limits their access to specific journals

This leaves authors frustrated and professionally vulnerable. Scientific careers hang on publication decisions — and the current process too often feels like a black box.

Reviewers: The Backbone of Peer Review — and Its Most Neglected Members

• Lack of recognition — certificates feel hollow when everyone gets one – quantity over quality
• Zero compensation, despite publishers profiting (a lot) from their unpaid labor – a work is a work, and it should be paid
• Mismatch of interest, leading to disengaged reviews or outright declines – review request should align strictly to the reviewer preferences and knowledge

Many reviewers feel overburdened, underappreciated, and burnt out — and the system suffers as a result. Reviewers’ fatigue is real and is generated by the burdensome system.

Editors: Caught Between Science and Administration

• Reviewer shortages mean constant scrambling to fill assignments
• Administrative overload — chasing reviews, resolving conflicts, quality control
• Limited support for maintaining standards while balancing timelines

Instead of being scientific stewards, editors are pulled into time-consuming tasks that dilute their impact.

Publishers: Under Pressure, Fighting for Credibility

• Volume vs. quality — more submissions, tighter timelines, inconsistent review quality undermine publishers credibility
• Reputation risks — favoritism, reviewer bias, opaque processing, unfair treatment of the reviewers, overloaded editors, and low-quality output undermine trust

When peer-review falters, the credibility of the entire publishing ecosystem is at stake.

---

Why Hasn’t It Been Fixed?

Despite near-universal agreement that peer review needs reform, real change has been elusive. Why?

• No standardization — every journal has its own confusing format
• Unreliable review quality — untrained or disengaged reviewers
• Unchecked conflicts of interest — editor-selected reviewers with bias risk
• Invisible labor — reviewers’ work isn’t tracked nor rewarded
• Broken incentives — publishers gain, contributors strain

---

The ReviewPRO Solution: Built to Serve the Whole Ecosystem

At ReviewPRO, we’ve taken a fresh approach to building a peer-review system that is transparent, efficient, and equitable. The goal is to upgrade the process and improve the satisfaction of all the stakeholders. Here’s how we meet each stakeholder’s core needs:

For Authors

• Transparent review timelines – a clear schedule for the article revision boosted by blockchain technology
• Conflict-free reviews through third-party matching – avoids conflict of interests between the editor, authors and reviewers by managin the choice of the reviewers indipendently from the edition and publication

For Reviewers

• Training and mentorship programs – Reviewing is a difficult task and needs proper training
• Verified recognition with performance metrics – An open evaluation of the reviews and a consequent rating of the reviewers will help the system to keep high-standards
• Compensation – Reviewing is a very important work an like every work, it should be paid, especially in a market where the big players gain big money
• Review preference matching to increase engagement – The main reason for reviewing is interest: ReviewPRO adheres to reviewers preferences to adapt to their needs and wishes

For Editors

• Access to pre-vetted reviewer pools – Extend your reviewing posisbility by connecting with different reviewers around the globe
• Automated admin workflows — no more chasing reviews for the editors, whom can then focus on science
• Refocused editorial roles — more science, less logistics

For Publishers

• Independent, bias-resistant reviews – no more missed opportunities or bad papers published in the journal
• Data-backed quality control – using our system you can scale the scientific publication rankings while growing scientists engagement with your journal 
• Improved trust and transparency in journal operations – fair, better, and faster publication system means gaining the trust of the academics

---

The Vision: A Better Future for Scientific Publishing

Science deserves a peer-review process that rewards integrity, promotes fairness, and values the labor behind every paper. With ReviewPRO, we’re not just reworking the system — we’re pushing for a complete peer review reform in academic publishing.

We envision:

• More trust in peer-reviewed findings
• Higher-quality journals and editorial standards
• Motivated reviewers with professional credit
• Empowered editors focused on advancing science
• A global community that feels represented and supported

---

Ready to Join the Peer Review Revolution?

If you’re an author, reviewer, editor, or publisher looking for a better way — ReviewPRO is here to help
Sign up as a reviewer at reviewpro here
or work with as editor or publisher here