The scientific publications across various disciplines are increasing tremendously. While publishing, manuscript should go under peer review, which is core of any research publication irrespective of subjects and areas. The increasing publications have definitely put huge efforts for Editor and Editorial Assistant for securing peer reviewers. Despite the AI based reviewers invitation, Editor, of course has to put effort in analyzing the reviewer comments and further decision. The increasing publications also add, new authors, which eventually would be reviewers after some time, thus, publication increases the number of authors and reviewers as well. However, as far as Reproductive Endocrinology is concerned, the number of manuscripts is lesser than other areas (based on pubmed search).
Then question is what challenges for Editor? The challenge is securing the reviewers for manuscript. If question is being asked to author, and Editor, there is common answer, difficult to find reviewers (Zupanc, 2024). I do not have any empirical data on this difficulty; however, it may be common experiences for many authors. Since, this experiences are based on the being the Editorial board members of some journals, which is publishing work on reproductive endocrinology. Despite, several invitations to various reviewers, only a few of them responds and even those responds to invitation, may not submit the peer review reports. This may be due to huge submission of manuscript and one reviewer, may get multiple invitation from one journal for various manuscript, which could lead to reviewer fatigue (Wright, 2024).
The peer review process is a kind service to the scientific community, which does not give much to reviewer, except, recognition and expecting their manuscript would be reviewed in turn. It has also been proposed that fixing the number of manuscript and appropriate paying for reviewer may help to ease this difficulty (Seghier, 2025). It can be easily understand from reviewers point of view, why should review a manuscript? Devoting own time for others work, without much benefits, however, if it can be viewed from the authors perspective, the scenario would be different for delayed the review process, despite being passed quickly by editorial board is worrisome. Recent initiative has shown that paying to reviewers could improve review quality and timing as well (Gorelick, & Clark, 2025). However, paying to reviewer would incur cost either to publisher or authors. It means authors have to pay for review, however, upon rejection; the reviewer payment would be burden for publishers. There cannot be straight forward solution to these problems, worldwide.
Being involved in the Editorial board of some journals, what I have noticed that AI based reviewers search also shows, reviewers with a few publication or low h-index. Again, I do not undermine their scientific caliber, to being reviewer. Some of my own manuscript has also been returned by journal stating that we could not find the reviewers. I have also come across only a few manuscripts could secure minimum one or two reviewers within short period for reproductive endocrinology disciplines and rest faces the challenges in securing reviewers. The major problems in finding the reviewers largely depends on over burden to Editor and reviewers due to increase submission and many of us, don’t willing to accept the invitation. Even some time I also could not accept the invitation and failed to submit report on time, even for could not be submitted.
Thus, I could request the scientific community, even though, reviewing a manuscript does not give much benefit to individuals, but would be important as service to progress of reproductive endocrinology.
References
Zupanc, G. K. (2024). “It is becoming increasingly difficult to find reviewers”—myths and facts about peer review. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 210(1), 1-5.
Wright, D. E. (2024). Five problems plaguing publishing in the life sciences—and one common cause. FEBS letters, 598(18), 2227-2239.
Seghier, M. L. (2025). Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process. F1000Research, 13, 439.
Gorelick, D. A., & Clark, A. (2025). Fast & Fair peer review: a bold experiment in scientific publishing. Biology Open, 14(3), bio061982.