Fast & Fair peer review: a pilot study demonstrating feasibility of rapid, high-quality peer review in a biology journal
Abstract
Traditional peer review is slow, often delayed by the time-consuming process of identifying reviewers and lengthy review turnaround times. This study tests the feasibility of the Fast & Fair peer review initiative by evaluating whether we could implement and adhere to a structured timeline for rapid peer review at Biology Open. A 6-month pilot conducted from July to December 2024 evaluated a structured workflow with pre-contracted reviewers under two payment models: a freelance model or a retainer model. All manuscripts assigned to two of the journals ten academic editors were included in the Fast & Fair peer review initiative experiment. A structured editorial time-line ensured that all manuscripts received reviews and first decisions within 7 business days. The results demonstrated that 100% of Fast & Fair peer review initiative manuscripts met the turnaround target, with a mean of 4.6 business days (n=20 manuscripts). Review quality was maintained, as indicated by assessments by academic editors. The freelancer model outperformed retainers in cost-effectiveness. These findings suggest that the Fast & Fair peer review initiative is feasible and does not compromise review quality. While scalability remains to be tested, the initiative eliminates a major bottleneck in traditional peer review by streamlining reviewer identification and enforcing a strict editorial timeline.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 9
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Expanded implementation of Fast & Fair paid peer review reduces time to first decision without reducing review quality in a biology journal
Daniel A. Gorelick, Alejandra Clark·bioRxiv·Sep 9, 2026
- Auditing Biomedical Literature with Blinded AI Peer Review: Where Peer Review Works, Where It Fails, and How to Strengthen It
Sergei L. Kosakovsky Pond, Steven Weaver, … Anton Nekrutenko·bioRxiv·Nov 4, 2026
- The Influence of bioRχiv on PLOS ONE's Peer-Review and Acceptance Time
T. Hiroyuki, S. Yuan, … A. Kou·bioRxiv·Jan 28, 2020
- Structured Peer Review: Pilot results from 23 Elsevier Journals
M. Malicki, B. Mehmani·PeerJPeer-reviewed·Jun 25, 2024
- Discovery Stack Pilot Demonstrates the Feasibility and Outcomes of a Scientist-Designed Peer-Review Model That Separates Quality and Impact
Maureen Ann McGargill, Beiyun C. Liu, … Matthew F. Krummel·PLoS BiologyPeer-reviewed·Sep 8, 2026
- Pandemic Publishing: Medical journals drastically speed up their publication process for Covid-19
S. P. J. M. Horbach·Quantitative Science StudiesPeer-reviewed·Aug 1, 2020