Are careers in open peer review viable?

The current state of academic publishing is defined by intense scrutiny regarding transparency and accountability, placing open peer review (OPR) at the center of ongoing discussion. While the concept of making reviewer reports public, or even revealing reviewer identities, holds considerable appeal for improving scholarly rigor, the idea of a dedicated, financially viable career built solely around this activity remains debatable. ^[6][7] For most researchers, peer review is an expected, unpaid service integral to their academic duties, not a primary source of income. ^[9] However, as publishing models evolve, the specialized expertise required to conduct high-quality, transparent reviews is becoming an increasingly valuable component of broader academic and editorial careers. ^[3][10]

# Review Models

Open peer review is not a single monolithic system; rather, it encompasses several distinct approaches designed to increase transparency over the traditional, closed model. ^[8] Some models focus only on opening the reports, allowing authors to see the critiques without knowing who wrote them—this is often termed open reports. ^[6] Other approaches go further, involving open identities, where both the reviewer and author know each other’s names. ^[6] A third, more comprehensive iteration is open interaction, where authors and reviewers may communicate directly with each other, sometimes even publicly, to debate the merits of the work. ^[8] PLOS, for instance, employs an OPR system that allows reviewers to choose whether to sign their reports or opt for anonymity, providing flexibility within a transparent structure. ^[8] The viability of any career pathway within this space heavily depends on which specific model is being practiced, as greater transparency often demands more time and rigor from the reviewer. ^[1][6]

# Early Career Input

For early-career scientists (ECRs), engaging with OPR is often viewed through the lens of professional development rather than career viability in the reviewing sense. ^[3] Participating in OPR can offer ECRs visibility and experience that might otherwise be inaccessible in traditional, closed systems. ^[2][3] When reports are published, an ECR's detailed, thoughtful assessment of a manuscript becomes a permanent part of the public scholarly record, potentially serving as a unique credential. ^[2] This can be beneficial when seeking positions or proving editorial aptitude. ^[3] Springer Nature encourages ECR involvement, noting that contributing to the quality control of science builds credibility. ^[3] However, this participation comes with a trade-off: time spent reviewing is time taken away from conducting primary research, writing grants, or teaching, which are the metrics traditionally prioritized for tenure and promotion. ^[2][9]

Are careers in compensation intelligence viable?

# Career Visibility

The core value proposition of OPR for a researcher's career lies in the visibility of expertise. ^[2] In a traditional system, a reviewer's work is invisible, known only to the editor and author. With OPR, a well-reasoned, public review demonstrates deep subject matter knowledge to the broader community. ^[2][5] One potential analysis here is viewing OPR participation not as a job, but as public, uncompensated professional service that builds reputational capital. While an editor's comments on a CV might be vague, a published open review provides concrete evidence of critical assessment skills, which is exactly what hiring committees look for in future journal editors or senior reviewers. ^[4] Furthermore, direct, open interaction, when done professionally, can establish early connections with established researchers who might serve as future collaborators or mentors. ^[8]

# Compensation Concerns

A significant barrier to defining a "career" in peer review is the historical and ongoing lack of compensation. ^[9] Most academic journals, regardless of their OPR policy, still do not pay reviewers for their time, treating it as a necessary academic contribution. ^[9] The Reddit discussion on this topic highlights a shared frustration: if reviewing is necessary work, why isn't it acknowledged financially or through reduced service loads? ^[9] Some publishers have experimented with alternative forms of recognition, such as offering vouchers, discounts, or acknowledgment in annual reports. ^[3] Yet, none of these measures translate to a sustainable, full-time income. Therefore, a career purely in the act of reviewing for external journals is currently not viable for financial subsistence in the way traditional employment is. ^[7]

Are careers in systemic risk analysis viable?

# Transparency Limitations

While the goal of OPR is full transparency, achieving absolute openness faces practical and ethical hurdles. ^[5] Complete transparency might not always be possible or advisable. For instance, some reviewers may feel obligated to be more cautious or less direct in their criticism when their identity is attached to the critique, potentially leading to "watered-down" reviews that fail to significantly improve the manuscript. ^[5] Conversely, some authors or institutions may be hesitant to submit to fully open models due to fear of public critique or professional repercussions, which could limit the pool of available manuscripts for a dedicated reviewer. ^[1][7] The reality is that many OPR systems operate with a hybrid approach, allowing the reviewer to opt out of identity disclosure, which maintains some level of opacity even within an "open" system. ^[6]

# Building Editorial Expertise

If a viable path exists, it is likely through transitioning from reviewing to editorial roles, where compensation is standard. Expertise gained in OPR can serve as a fast-track toward these positions. ^[10] A person who has consistently provided high-quality, public reviews demonstrates an established editorial judgment that editors-in-chief will value highly. ^[4] These roles—such as Associate Editor, Section Editor, or eventually Editor-in-Chief—are paid positions, often structured as service appointments or stipends on top of a primary research salary. The skill set honed in OPR—critical analysis, constructive feedback delivery, and subject mastery—is directly transferable to the administrative and decision-making aspects of editing. ^[10] A researcher developing a reputation as an expert reviewer in a specific subfield, particularly one who has publicly defended their assessments, is effectively advertising their readiness for formal editorial appointments. ^[3]

Are careers in labor tech viable?

# Synthesizing Viability

When assessing the viability of an OPR career, it is essential to separate participation from profession. A profession implies that the primary income derives from the activity itself. Currently, OPR is best viewed as a career accelerant within the existing academic structure, not a stand-alone profession. ^[2][7] For an early-career researcher, the actionable step is to strategically engage with OPR where possible, perhaps focusing on journals known for supporting OPR or those within their most specialized niche. Instead of simply listing "Reviewed for Journal X," a more impactful approach on a CV might be tracking the impact of their published reviews. For example, instead of a simple bullet point, one might track: "Authored public, constructive peer review for Journal Y (2024), cited/referenced by authors in subsequent publication discussion ^[4]." This reframes the activity from mere service to demonstrable expertise.

Another key consideration, which goes unstated in many publisher guidelines, is the type of research being reviewed. If a researcher specializes in a niche, rapidly evolving area where preprints and open platforms are common, their OPR skills become more immediately relevant and visible than someone reviewing static, established topics. The more dynamic the field, the more immediate the need for transparent, rapid quality control, potentially increasing the perceived value of the OPR expert to journal editorial boards. ^[7] The current structure demands that individuals already have an established academic position to afford the time commitment, suggesting OPR viability is currently tethered to traditional academic success, not independent of it.

# Future Pathways

Looking ahead, some of the growth in OPR viability might come from journals transitioning to service-based models where peer review is centrally managed, or where services like pre-review or post-publication review become monetized external services. ^[7][10] As the volume of scientific output continues to climb, there is an increasing need for professional, third-party review services that are paid for by funding agencies or institutions rather than solely relying on the goodwill of active researchers. ^[1][9] Should this shift occur, individuals with established OPR credentials—demonstrating skill, fairness, and efficiency across multiple published reviews—would be the natural candidates for these future paid positions, whether as dedicated external reviewers or as specialized editorial staff managing pre-print assessments. ^[7] This path requires patience, as it depends on systemic funding changes that have yet to fully materialize across the industry. ^[7][10] For now, open peer review is best understood as a high-visibility, high-effort component of a successful academic career, not the career itself.