Peer review does not scale, and pretending otherwise is costly
Authors
Abstract
Submission volume has roughly tripled while the reviewer pool has grown by a third; the arithmetic admits only a few outcomes. The analysis draws on a corpus assembled from institutional repositories, preprint servers and publisher metadata feeds, and the full dataset together with the code needed to reproduce every figure is deposited under a permissive licence. Limitations, including coverage gaps in non-English sources, are set out in the discussion.
Graphical Abstract
Keywords
Subjects