arXiv · 2604.27900
Can We Volunteer Out of the Peer Review Crisis?
Abstract
The volume of scientific manuscripts is growing faster than the capacity to evaluate them, yet the institutions that govern peer review have remained largely unchanged. The result is a widening mismatch: reviewer scarcity, noisier assessments, and declining confidence in editorial decisions. Every scientist wants better reviews, but review quality depends on the total burden, which no single author can shift. To isolate this tension, we provide a game-theoretic thought experiment: a voluntary lottery in which authors accept a chance of random pre-review rejection, reducing reviewer burden and improving the quality of surviving evaluations. We show that a Nash equilibrium emerges in which authors voluntarily enter the lottery. Scientists who care about the literature they read, not just the papers they publish, will opt in, raising the quality of published science for all.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Theo Tang, Toby Handfield, Julian Garcia. 2026-04-30. Can We Volunteer Out of the Peer Review Crisis?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.27900
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.