I check the submission website again. And again. Sometimes in the middle of the night, I find myself refreshing the page, hoping for a small update (a new status, a change in wording, a sign that my manuscript has moved from “under review” to “decision in process”).

For early-career researchers, this waiting game is familiar. We pour months, sometimes years, of effort into designing a study, collecting data, writing, revising, and submitting. Then suddenly, we hand over our work to an invisible system and wait. Days turn into weeks. Weeks into months. Some journals respond in a few days. Others take half a year. And in those long silences, I often wonder: Why is the peer review process so inconsistent?

Who are the reviewers behind the curtain

Peer review is the backbone of scientific publishing, but also one of its biggest mysteries. Who are these reviewers? Are they experts in the field, or just anyone willing to volunteer? Do they truly understand the nuances of what they are reading, the depth of the topic, the context of the data?

Peer review, in theory, is meant to uphold scientific integrity. But in practice, it often feels like a patchwork system. Some reviewers provide thoughtful, constructive insight; others deliver vague or harsh comments that reflect limited understanding.

I’ve received both kinds of reviews: one that elevated my work and made it better, and another that made me question if the reviewer had read beyond the abstract.

Why the delays

It’s no secret that finding reviewers is increasingly difficult. Most journals rely on volunteers: unpaid, unrecognized, often overworked academics who squeeze in reviews between clinical shifts or late-night writing sessions.

As someone who sits on both sides of the process (as an author and as a reviewer), I understand how much time it takes to read, reflect, and provide a meaningful critique. Sometimes, after a full clinical day, I think, “Just one more hour, I’ll finish this review tonight.” Because I know someone on the other end is waiting, refreshing their inbox, just like I am.

But should this vital work really depend on goodwill alone? Shouldn’t reviewers be compensated, not just with a thank-you email or a certificate, but with real recognition of their time and expertise?

Where do we go from here

There is no universal standard for peer review. No central body ensuring quality or timeliness. Each journal operates differently; some with robust systems and accountability, others struggling to find even one qualified reviewer.

Perhaps it’s time to reimagine the process. To build a transparent, standardized platform where reviewers are trained, supported, and even paid for their contributions. To ensure that authors, especially early-career researchers, are not left waiting indefinitely: anxious, uncertain, and unseen.

As I wait

As I wait for that one email (the one that says “decision made”), I think about how much faith we place in this system. A system built on trust, volunteerism, and good intentions.

And I wonder if we can make it better. For the reviewers who give their time. For the editors who struggle to find them. And for the authors who wait in the middle of the night, refreshing the page, hoping for a small step forward.

V. Sushma Chamarthi is a pediatrician and obesity medicine physician.