bioRxivScientific Communication & EducationPreprint
Expanded implementation of Fast & Fair paid peer review reduces time to first decision without reducing review quality in a biology journal
- Citations
- 3
Abstract
Traditional peer review is often slowed by delays in identifying willing reviewers and waiting for completed review reports. In a 2024 pilot on the journal Biology Open, we showed that Fast & Fair peer review, which uses pre-contracted paid reviewers and a structured editorial timeline, could deliver rapid, high-quality peer. Here, we report the expanded implementation of Fast & Fair at Biology Open in 2025. From 1 April 2025 onward, all direct submissions to the journal were considered for Fast & Fair peer review unless appropriate pre-contracted reviewer expertise was unavailable. Reviewers were paid 220 GBP per manuscript only if they completed the review on time, and the review met editorial quality expectations. Among peer-reviewed manuscripts submitted in 2025, Fast & Fair reduced time to first decision with reviews from a mean of 37.7 working days under conventional peer review to 5.5 working days. Reviewer commitment also improved. Fast & Fair invitations were accepted more often than conventional invitations (67% versus 23%), had lower nonresponse (13% versus 39%), and had higher completion among accepted invitations (98% versus 87%). Faster review was not associated with reduced review quality. Handling editors scored each review for usefulness in editorial decision-making. Fast & Fair produced fewer low-scoring reports than conventional peer review. Editorial behavior was also unchanged, with similar first-decision profiles and final acceptance rates (59% versus 61%). While financial sustainability remains to be tested at scale, the Fast & Fair model addresses a major bottleneck in traditional peer review by replacing ad hoc reviewer recruitment with conditional compensation, predefined quality standards and a strict editorial timeline.
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
- Fast & Fair peer review: a pilot study demonstrating feasibility of rapid, high-quality peer review in a biology journal
Daniel A. Gorelick, Alejandra Clark·bioRxiv·Mar 18, 2025
- How random is the review outcome? A systematic study of the impact of external factors on eLife peer review
Weixin Liang, Kyle Mahowald, … James Zou·bioRxiv·Jan 4, 2023
- 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
- Can paid reviews promote scientific quality and offer novel career perspectives for young scientists?
Christian Wurzbacher, Hans-Peter Grossart, … Martin Unterseher·bioRxiv·Nov 25, 2016
- The Influence of bioRχiv on PLOS ONE's Peer-Review and Acceptance Time
T. Hiroyuki, S. Yuan, … A. Kou·bioRxiv·Jan 28, 2020
- Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature
C. F. D. Carneiro, V. G. S. Queiroz, … O. B. Amaral·bioRxiv·Oct 8, 2020