A plant scientist declines a review invitation because fieldwork can’t wait. A postdoctoral researcher with relevant expertise would welcome the opportunity but has never been invited. Elsewhere, a manuscript that has already received careful reviews is submitted to another journal, where the search for reviewers begins again.
These situations illustrate why peer review capacity deserves a closer look. The available expertise, the time people can contribute, and the way journals organize evaluation all shape whether a paper receives a timely, useful assessment.
Peer Review Week 2026, September 14–18, brings these questions together under the theme “Peer Review Capacity: Volume, Speed, and Quality.” For ASPB and the communities served by Plant Physiology, The Plant Cell, and Plant Direct, the challenge is to preserve careful scientific judgment while making better use of the work that authors, reviewers, and editors already contribute.
The complicated issue of reviewer overload
In a 2016 PLOS ONE study, Michail Kovanis and colleagues modeled supply and demand in biomedical peer review. Across their principal scenarios for 2015, potential supply exceeded demand, but an estimated 20% of researchers performed between 69% and 94% of reviews. This study is not a measurement of plant science capacity in 2026, however, the authors establish an important distinction between the size of a potential reviewer community and how its labor is distributed; few people are doing most of the work.
More recent evidence has found that reviewers can be both overloaded and underutilized at the same time. IOP Publishing’s 2024 survey of 3,046 physical sciences researchers found that approximately half reported receiving more invitations, yet 30% said they had more time for reviewing than the number of requests they received. Among early-career researchers, 35% reported having more capacity for reviewing. These self-reported findings may not reflect what is happening in plant biology, but they challenge the assumption that everyone is equally overwhelmed.
For plant science journals, this suggests a practical task: examine whose expertise is visible to editors. A researcher working on an underrepresented crop, a specialist in a particular analytical method, or a scientist outside familiar institutional networks may have the expertise a manuscript requires. Expanding participation requires better discovery and matching, alongside conflict checks and realistic assessments of availability. Adding names to a database alone will not accomplish that.
Preserve the value of reviews when manuscripts move
One of the most direct ways to address capacity is to avoid commissioning the same work repeatedly. A paper may need another publication venue without needing an entirely new evaluation of every experiment.
ASPB’s journals provide concrete routes for preserving that work. The current author guidelines for both Plant Physiology and The Plant Cell allow transfers among ASPB journals, with reviewer reports included when reviewers consent. The receiving editors retain responsibility for the decision and may seek additional review. That qualification matters: transferring reviews preserves evidence for an editorial decision without guaranteeing acceptance.
For transfers to Plant Direct, which accepts transfers from a range of journals including Plant Physiology and The Plant Cell, papers undergo an initial quality check followed by a target of an initial decision within two weeks once the manuscript reaches a Supervising Editor.
The potential capacity benefit is straightforward: fewer repeated assessments of questions already addressed. Demonstrating that benefit requires tracking whether transferred reports actually inform decisions, how often new reviewers are recruited, and how much additional work follows.
Build reviewing skills through supported participation
Recruiting new reviewers creates lasting capacity only if they can develop the skills and confidence to contribute well. Reviewing requires more than recognizing familiar techniques: it involves weighing evidence, identifying consequential limitations, and explaining concerns in a way that authors can address.
Plant Direct offered a specific model when it announced its Associate Reviewer Board in 2020. The initiative distinguished researchers beginning to review from those seeking additional experience. For beginners, it offered online training, hands-on mentoring from editorial board members, and feedback on subsequent reviews. More experienced participants could be identified in the reviewer pool as interested in further opportunities. This example shows how recruitment can be connected to development. Plant Physiology’s and The Plant Cell’s Assistant Features Editor programs foster critical review skills in early career researchers and encourage participation in reviewer communities.
Speed improves when it’s clear what a paper must demonstrate
In plant biology, a request for another experiment can entail a new growing season, generation, or field trial. Sometimes that work is essential. Sometimes the appropriate response is a narrower claim, a clearer limitation, or a future study.
The Committee on Publication Ethics explicitly advises reviewers to distinguish additional investigations needed to support a manuscript’s claims from those that would strengthen or extend the work. It also cautions against unnecessary delays. Applying that guidance requires editorial judgment: authors need to know which concerns must be resolved for publication and why.
Transparency offers another resource. Plant Physiology and The Plant Cell aim to publish peer review reports on an author opt-in basis while keeping reviewer identities confidential. Plant Direct also publishes peer review reports, author responses, and decision letters for accepted submissions, with an exception for papers transferred with existing reviews.
These records can provide material for teaching how scientific concerns are raised and resolved, which may later contribute to more efficient reviews as researchers learn both how to better prepare their content for publication and how to conduct an effective review.
The link between volume, speed, and quality
Faster decisions are valuable, but speed achieved by shifting work onto authors, overloading a few reviewers, or overlooking unresolved scientific concerns is difficult to sustain.
For the communities around Plant Physiology, The Plant Cell, and Plant Direct, the most productive Peer Review Week conversation is about where changes would make a true difference. Whose expertise is missed in the current system? Which requests are essential to support a paper’s claims? Where would better support allow reviewers and editors to contribute more effectively?
Every thoughtful review represents time taken from other demanding work. Building capacity means respecting that investment throughout the publication process and creating supported opportunities for more scientists to participate. What one change would make the greatest difference in your experience as an author, reviewer, or editor?
