For many years, peer review has been an expected but largely invisible part of academic life, undertaken quietly, without compensation, and often without formal recognition. In my experience, peer review requests now arrive almost weekly, often competing with teaching, mentoring, and administrative responsibilities. While not all are accepted, many are taken on out of a sense of professional obligation, even when time is limited. This work has been sustained by a shared sense of responsibility to the discipline and to the advancement of knowledge.

As in other branches of science, peer review in the biomedical sciences has long been a core part of scholarly work, typically carried out without financial compensation. It has long been viewed as a professional obligation rather than paid labor. However, the changing landscape of higher education now calls this assumption into question.

In this context, paid peer review is a reasonable and constructive practice. It enhances the seriousness of the process while also providing modest recognition for the significant time and expertise reviewers contribute. At a time when higher education faces sustained financial pressure, with stagnant salaries, limited raises over multiple years, and rising inflation, acknowledging scholarly labor in tangible ways is not unreasonable.

Compensation for review (though modest and not comparable to professional consulting or private-sector review committees) is not entirely new. Agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health provide honoraria and support for panel-based review activities, which include evaluating proposals, participating in discussions, and contributing to funding decisions. While not identical to journal peer review, this precedent raises the broader question of why compensation in academic publishing remains controversial. Modest honoraria for peer review need not compromise integrity. As with other scholarly activities, what matters is transparency and preserving independent judgment.

Practical considerations remain, particularly for journals with high submission volumes and rejection rates. Not every review can be compensated equally. Selective and modest honoraria, especially for thorough and timely reviews, offer a feasible path forward without undermining editorial independence. Such compensation need not be substantial or uniform. Modest per-review honoraria or publisher-level approaches could provide recognition without imposing undue financial or administrative burdens.

At the same time, there are concerns about the current publishing model. While digital platforms and open access were meant to expand access, journals now generate substantial revenue through article processing charges and access fees. In principle, digital publication should reduce costs compared to traditional print and lessen environmental impact by minimizing paper use and associated chemical processes. In practice, however, costs have continued to rise. Much of the underlying research is publicly funded, yet access to the final published versions often remains restricted. Authors may retain copies, but control over distribution and accessibility is limited.

In some respects, it can feel as though scientific research, produced largely with public funding, is being transferred into privately controlled systems. This creates a disconnect. The public supports the research enterprise, but access to the outcomes is mediated by paywalls, licensing restrictions, or additional fees. While policies are gradually moving toward greater openness, tensions surrounding access and ownership persist.

There is also an imbalance in how scholarly labor is valued. While editors-in-chief may receive compensation, most associate editors and section editors, particularly in academia, serve with little or no financial support. These roles are often accepted for the scholarly visibility and professional recognition they provide, yet much of the essential work, peer review and editorial contributions, remains unpaid. Meanwhile, faculty in many institutions, particularly smaller or under-resourced ones, face increasing financial strain.

In this context, compensating reviewers is not simply a transactional adjustment, but a step toward recognizing the evolving realities of academic labor and sustaining the integrity of the research enterprise. For years, many in academia have been hesitant to ask for even modest compensation, and such silence should not be taken as an endorsement of the status quo. A modest recalibration of how this work is valued may be both timely and warranted.

Rao M. Uppu is professor of environmental toxicology and chemistry at Southern University and A&M College in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where he has served since 2002. He is also an adjunct professor of chemistry and pathobiological sciences at Louisiana State University.

Trained in biochemistry, physical organic chemistry, and free radical chemistry, his research spans bioanalytical methods, biomarker discovery and validation, chemical toxicology, environmental chemistry, computational genomics, reactive intermediates, and the molecular mechanisms of disease. His scholarship is indexed on ORCID, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar.

Dr. Uppu is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), the Royal Society of Biology (RSB), the Royal Society of Medicine (RSM), the Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH), and the Academy of Toxicological Sciences (ATS).

In addition to his scientific research, he writes reflective essays on scientific culture, mentorship, peer review, ethics, and the human dimensions of academic life. He shares updates on LinkedIn.