It's a frustrating spot to be in. You've spent years contributing to a journal—sending in your best research and spending your weekends reviewing other people's work—only to find out that the "price of admission" has suddenly skyrocketed. When a journal switches to a full open-access model with a hefty Article Processing Charge (APC), it can feel like the goalposts were moved just as you were about to score.
You're essentially asking: Why should I keep doing the unpaid labor of reviewing for a company that now charges me a small fortune to publish my own work? It feels like a bad deal because, on a purely transactional level, it is.
The "Academic Trade" is breaking
For a long time, the "deal" in academia was simple: you provide free peer review, and in exchange, the journal provides a prestigious venue for your work. The journal made money from library subscriptions, not from the authors. But the shift toward open access has flipped the script. Now, the cost has shifted from the reader to the writer.
If you're at a wealthy institution with a "transformative agreement," you might not even notice the cost. But for those of us without that safety net, a 2,500 fee isn't just a line item in a budget; it's a barrier to entry. It's totally normal to feel a sense of resentment when the labor you provide (reviewing) helps a journal maintain a prestige that you can no longer afford to access as an author.
The case for saying "no"
If you're leaning toward stopping your reviews, you aren't alone. Here are a few honest reasons why stepping back might be the right move for you:
- Your time is a finite resource. Reviewing is grueling work. If you feel the journal's business model is predatory or unfair, spending five to ten hours on a manuscript might feel like you're subsidizing a system that excludes you.
Voting with your labor. While one person stopping their reviews won't crash a journal, a collective shift in the community can signal to publishers that APCs are unsustainable.
Prioritizing other venues. You might decide to spend that time reviewing for "Diamond Open Access" journals—those that are free for both readers and authors—to help build a more equitable ecosystem.
The case for saying "yes" (or "maybe")
On the flip side, there are a few reasons why you might keep reviewing, even if you hate the fee. This isn't about being "nice" to the publisher; it's about your own professional standing.
Maintaining your network
Peer review isn't just about the journal; it's about the community. When you review, you see the cutting-edge work in your field before anyone else. You also build a relationship with the editors. If you ever do find the funding for a paper, or if you're nominated for an editorial board position, having a track record of reliable, high-quality reviews is a huge asset.
The "Good Citizen" argument
Think about the authors whose papers you're reviewing. They aren't the ones setting the APC prices. They're likely just as stressed as you are, hoping their work gets accepted so they can graduate or get tenure. By reviewing, you're helping a fellow researcher, not necessarily the publishing house.
Imagine a scenario where you're a PhD student submitting your first major paper. You've poured three years of your life into it. If every experienced researcher in your field stopped reviewing because they hated the APC, your paper would sit in limbo for a year. You're providing a service to the science, even if the business model is flawed.
How to handle this moving forward
You don't have to choose between being a "doormat" for the publisher and completely ghosting the journal. There are middle-ground options.
Be honest with the editor
The next time you get a review request, you can reply with a polite but firm note. You could say something like: "I've enjoyed contributing to the journal over the years, but I'm finding it difficult to justify the time spent reviewing now that the APCs have become a barrier for researchers in my position."
You'd be surprised how many editors are actually frustrated by these corporate mandates too. It might lead to a conversation about APC waivers. Many journals have a pot of money to waive fees for authors who can't afford them, but they don't always advertise it. If the editor knows you're a loyal reviewer who is being priced out, they might be more inclined to help you secure a waiver for your next submission.
Set a "Review Budget"
Instead of an all-or-nothing approach, limit your contributions. Tell yourself you'll do two reviews a year for this journal—enough to stay on the editor's radar, but not so many that you feel exploited.
At the end of the day, your career and your mental health come first. If reviewing for this journal leaves a bitter taste in your mouth every time you open the email, it's okay to stop. The field will survive, and you'll have more time to focus on the research that actually matters.
Originally published on EduPath Hub.
Top comments (0)