Answer the Call: Nursing’s Need for Committed Peer Reviewers

Rita D’Aoust, PhD, ANP-BC, CNE, FAANP, FNAP, FAAN

The nursing profession faces a multifaceted problem that extends far beyond hospital wards and clinical settings. While much attention has been focused on the critical shortage of bedside nurses—with projections indicating the world may be short 5.7 million nurses by 2030 (Bean, 2020)—a parallel and equally concerning threat looms at the very foundation of nursing scholarship: the alarming shortage of peer reviewers for nursing journals. This call to professional service is one that many nurses are failing to answer, undermining the quality and timeliness of nursing research dissemination. This ultimately compromises evidence-based practice and patient outcomes.

The Growing Burden on an Overburdened System

The peer review system, which has long relied on the unpaid service of academic volunteers, is experiencing unprecedented strain. Inside Higher Ed (2022) reported that the peer-review system, which is virtually 100% dependent on these volunteers, has long been stressed, and the COVID-19 pandemic only made it worse. For nursing journals specifically, this challenge is particularly acute. For example, Ali and Watson (2016) note that the Journal of Advanced Nursing receives approximately 1,400 manuscripts annually and publishes fewer than 20% of them, requiring substantial reviewer resources to maintain quality standards.

The situation has become increasingly challenging as editors report not only rising rates of reviewers declining invitations to review, but also the frustrating phenomenon of complete non-responses to reviewer invitations. Bakker and Traniello (2019) found that for the fields of behavioral ecology and sociobiology, the rate of declining an invitation to evaluate a manuscript was increasing, thereby following the general trend of declining willingness to review. Even more concerning is when potential reviewers simply ignore invitations entirely, leaving editors in limbo and further delaying the review process. This silence forces editors to send multiple rounds of invitations, creating cascading delays that ultimately harm authors and the timely advancement of nursing science.

The mathematics are sobering. As manuscript submissions continue to increase across academic disciplines, the pool of qualified reviewers has not expanded proportionally. BMC Nursing (2024) acknowledged this challenge in their peer-review policy, noting that in cases where the journal is unable to find sufficient peer reviewers, the services of a publishing partner, American Journal Experts (AJE), may be used to identify suitable reviewers and provide reports to avoid further delays for authors. This represents a concerning trend where journals must increasingly rely on external services to secure reviewers, potentially compromising the specialized knowledge needed for nursing manuscripts.

The shortage has real consequences for the nursing profession. Syed (2023) observed that the growth of mega-journals such as PloS ONE, Frontiers, and Scientific Reports, along with the huge number of special issues published by MDPI Journals has created an environment where quality control becomes increasingly difficult to maintain. This is particularly problematic for a practice discipline like nursing where research directly impacts patient care.

The Reciprocity Imperative: A Professional Obligation

Central to addressing this urgent problem is recognizing peer review as a fundamental professional obligation rather than an optional service. Bakker and Traniello (2019) assert that for the system to be self-supporting, resilient, and effective, authors of each manuscript submitted to and reviewed by a peer-review journal should accept two to three (the typical number of reviewers in many journals) requests to review manuscripts in return. This principle of reciprocity is not merely courteous—it is ethically essential for maintaining the integrity of nursing scholarship.

The rationale is compelling: if every nurse who submits a manuscript also commits to reviewing manuscripts for others, the peer review ecosystem would be sustainable and robust. Bakker and Traniello (2019) explain that for a three-author paper that had been submitted to two journals before acceptance, each co-author should be willing to review one to two manuscripts in return. This mathematical balance ensures that the scholarly community operates on principles of mutual support rather than extractive practices without acknowledging a duty to reciprocate.

Current evidence suggests this reciprocity is lacking. Kane et al. (2025) found that with almost no reciprocity in the peer review process, major journals and their publishers need to promote and establish more give and take in a system that currently favors them disproportionately. This imbalance places an unfair burden on the minority of scholars who do accept review invitations, often leading to reviewer fatigue and declining quality.

The Compounding Effect of Nursing’s Broader Challenges

The peer reviewer shortage in nursing occurs within the context of broader professional challenges that exacerbate the problem. Speroni (2024) explained that the nursing shortage can be attributed to many factors, including pandemic challenges, burn-out/compassion fatigue, unhealthy work environments, pay rates variances, staffing constraints, management issues, nurses retiring, nurses leaving the profession early, and not enough academic nurse educators adequately compensated.

Academic nurses, who typically serve as peer reviewers, face particular pressures. Antig et al. (2024) observed that the nursing education sector has felt the impact of the shortage of nursing clinical instructors or faculty members, and this phenomenon became more profound with the pandemic experience. When academic nurses are stretched thin between teaching, research, and clinical responsibilities, peer review often becomes the first professional service to be declined.

The faculty shortage has cascading effects on the reviewer pool. Inside Higher Ed (2022) identified the “diminishing amount of tenured faculty to be able to review” as among long-term concerns, given that the vast majority of the academic workforce is now employed off the tenure track. This structural change in higher education has reduced the number of secure positions from which scholars typically contribute substantial service, including peer review.

The Professional Case for Peer Review Participation

Beyond reciprocity obligations, participating in peer review offers numerous professional benefits that nurses should recognize and embrace. Ali and Watson (2016) noted that the peer review process is also useful for peer reviewers themselves, as it helps them develop knowledge and expertise in their specific field. They further observe that acting as a peer reviewer may also be recognized as an example of ‘contribution to the profession’ in individual performance reviews.

It is important to acknowledge and celebrate the dedicated nursing scholars who consistently contribute their expertise to the peer review process. These robust reviewers form the backbone of nursing scholarship, often juggling multiple review requests while maintaining their own research, teaching, and clinical responsibilities. Their commitment to providing thoughtful, constructive feedback helps ensure the quality and rigor of published nursing research. These scholarly citizens demonstrate that peer review participation, while demanding, can be both professionally rewarding and intellectually stimulating as reviewers engage with cutting-edge research in their fields.

For emerging nursing scholars, peer review participation is particularly valuable. Oerther and Watson (2019) emphasized that conducting a peer review for a journal may help emerging nursing scholars grow in their understanding of the publication process. However, they also note that unfortunately, there is almost no formal or standardized training for emerging nursing scholars as they begin to engage in the peer‐review process. Mentorship programs and structured learning opportunities can help novice reviewers develop these critical skills while contributing to the scholarly community.

The educational benefits extend beyond individual development. Xu et al. (2016) found that mentored peer reviewing helps novice researchers build manuscript critique expertise and that peer review groups provide an individualized mentoring opportunity for faculty. They concluded that the group peer review mentoring experience demystifies the manuscript review process. Such collaborative approaches can help address the shortage while building reviewer capacity for the future.

Toward Sustainable Solutions

Addressing the peer reviewer shortage requires multi-level interventions from individuals, institutions, and journal publishers. At the individual level, every nurse who has ever submitted a manuscript should view peer review participation as a professional obligation. This includes not only accepting reasonable numbers of review invitations but also responding promptly to invitations—even if the response is to decline. Professional courtesy demands that scholars respond to review invitations within the timeframe specified, allowing editors to quickly identify alternative reviewers when necessary. Complete non-response to invitations compounds the shortage by creating uncertainty and delays in the editorial process.

The commitment shown by dedicated reviewers who consistently contribute high-quality, timely reviews serves as a model for professional engagement. These scholars understand that their expertise strengthens the entire field and that peer review, while time-intensive, represents an investment in nursing science that benefits patients, practitioners, and the profession as a whole.

Institutional solutions are equally important. Inside Higher Ed (2022) argued that real solutions would require labor solidarity across academic tracks & ranks because everything else is simply a bandage. Academic institutions must recognize peer review as legitimate scholarship and factor this service into workload calculations and promotion criteria. Clinical institutions should support nurses’ scholarly activities, including peer review participation.

Journal publishers must also acknowledge their role in creating sustainable reviewer ecosystems. While some journals are beginning to offer modest compensation or recognition programs for reviewers, more substantial changes may be needed. Inside Higher Ed (2022) suggested that possible solutions include paying reviewers or limiting revise-and-resubmits, though these approaches require careful consideration of their broader implications for nursing scholarship.

A Call to Action

The shortage of nursing journal peer review reflects broader challenges facing the nursing profession, but it also presents an opportunity for professional growth and community building. The call for peer reviewers is not just a request—it is an invitation to contribute meaningfully to nursing science and patient care outcomes. Every nurse who has benefited from published research has a stake in maintaining the quality and integrity of the peer review process.

Such quality assurance mechanisms are essential to ensure publication of reliable and high quality research and scholarly evidence (Ali & Watson, 2016). In nursing, where research directly impacts patient care, this quality assurance is not merely academic, it is a matter of patient safety and professional responsibility.

The solution begins with individual commitment to reciprocity: if you submit manuscripts, you should also review manuscripts. But it must extend to institutional recognition of peer review as valuable scholarship and journal publisher investment in reviewer support and recognition. Only through such comprehensive efforts can nursing scholarship maintain the rigorous standards that patients, families, and communities deserve.

The nursing profession has always been built on principles of service and mutual support. Now is the time to extend these values to our scholarly community, ensuring that nursing research continues to advance through robust, timely, and high-quality peer review. The call for committed peer reviewers is clear and urgent. Answering this call is both a professional responsibility and an opportunity to strengthen the scientific foundation of nursing practice. The silent plight of reviewer shortage need not remain silent if nurses collectively commit to answering the call for service to our scholarly community.

References

Ali, P. A., & Watson, R. (2016). Peer review and the publication process. Nursing Open, 3(4), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.51

Antig, A., Peñarubia, J. D., Roca, K. L., Asleem, S. K., Baua, E. P., Samonte, K. C. A., Gannaban, E. R. S., Umali, E. G., Gallardo, A. S., Laman, D. P., & Maaño, A. N. (2024). Nursing faculty shortage impact on nursing students: A descriptive phenomenological study. Nursing Research and Practice, 2024, Article 1751942. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/1751942

Bakker, T. C. M., & Traniello, J. F. A. (2019). Peer-review reciprocity and commitment to manuscript evaluation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 73(3), Article 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-019-2647-2

Bean, M. (2020, April 9). World may be short 5.7M nurses by 2030: 4 report takeaways. Becker’s Hospital Review. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/nursing/world-may-be-short-5-7m-nurses-by-2030-4-report-takeaways.html

BMC Nursing. (2024). Peer-review policy. BMC Nursing. https://bmcnurs.biomedcentral.com/submission-guidelines/peer-review-policy

Oerther, S., & Watson, R. (2019). Emerging nursing scholars guide to peer reviewing an academic manuscript. Nursing Open, 6(4), 1284-1290. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.376

Inside Higher Ed. (2022, June 13). Peer-review crisis creates problems for journals and scholars. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/06/13/peer-review-crisis-creates-problems-journals-and-scholars

Kane, D. J., Moher, D., & Angus, M. H. (2025). Publisher and journal reciprocity for peer review: Not so much. Accountability in Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2450451

Lee, J. L., Logan, L., Pajarillo, E. J. Y., Kubanick, V. A. E., Brown, F., Kabigting, E. R., Santee, R., Doria, J. B., Seibold-Simpson, S., & Bajwa, M. (2024). Addressing the shortage of academic nurse educators: Enlisting public and business sectors as advocates. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 29(2). https://ojin.nursingworld.org/table-of-contents/volume-29-2024/number-2-may-2024/shortage-of-academic-nurse-educators/

Speroni, K. G. (2024, May 31). Overview and summary: Today’s nursing shortage: Workforce considerations. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 29(2). https://ojin.nursingworld.org/table-of-contents/volume-29-2024/number-2-may-2024/todays-nursing-shortage/

Syed, M. (2023, September 7). The “peer review crisis” and how to solve it. Get Sy-educated. https://getsyeducated.substack.com/p/the-peer-review-crisis-and-how-to

Xu, J., Kim, K., Kurtz, M., & Nolan, M. T. (2016). Mentored peer reviewing for PhD faculty and students. Nurse Education Today, 37, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.11.031