Bot-Tastic: Overload Burden of Unsolicited Peer Review Requests, Field of Expertise, and Narrative Hot-Takes.

Abstract

Unsolicited peer review requests have increased with the expansion of academic publishing, raising concerns about reviewer fatigue. Peer review is a critical component in disseminating scientific discovery requiring time and expertise, often uncompensated. We sought to quantify and analyze characteristics of the review solicitation burden on a group of senior faculty. We conducted a prospective mixed-methods study of 6 senior academic physicians who are peer reviewers and editors. Each participant monitored their email inboxes (9/1-12/13, 2024) for peer review requests. We collected solicitation date, journal name, discipline, reviewer's existing relationship to journal, content relevance, response to request, immediate Plutchik Basic Emotions reaction, narrative comments, using hermeneutic phenomenology. We calculated descriptive statistics and performed a thematic analysis with a constructivist paradigm of narrative comments. Participants (5 institutions, 3 males) received 139 solicitations. Over half (52.5%, 73) were requests from a journal with whom the physician had no or unknown previous contact. Less than 1/3 of solicitations were directly relevant (28.1%, 39); 43.2% (60) partially relevant; 28.8% (40) irrelevant. Only 2.3% (3) of requests were accepted; 55.4% (77) were declined and 42.4% (59) were ignored. Of the Plutchik Basic Emotions, most were surprised (36%, 48) or disgusted (31%, 41). Qualitative analysis identified four themes: (1) issues with review process/journal quality, (2) time/effort demands, (3) relevancy to expertise, (4) technology/administrative barriers. Academic faculty received copious peer review requests and declined or ignored many, citing frustration, surprise or disgust. Editors should optimize the review request process to avoid reviewer burnout.