A big frustration for authors is the time they have to wait until a study is published. Although peer review is only a part of the process to publish something, it is an important part of the process.

As discussed in our blog yesterday, with the capacity issues currently at place, it takes time to find people. An increasing number of academics feels overwhelmed and is less willing to review, they simply receive too many invitations that are outside their expertise. Editors wait a few days, and if there are not enough reviewers, the process starts again: scouting, selecting, inviting, waiting.

The only thing worse than a slow review process, is a review process that skips the checks that actually matter. A faster review process is good, but only if the quality is safeguarded.

As timelines tighten, the pressure to move quickly can quietly erode the safeguards that keep the record clean - think paper mills and authorship irregularities, and reviewers approving submissions outside their expertise.

Speed and integrity aren't actually in conflict. The tools just have to catch what a rushed human eye might miss, so editors can move fast and trust what they're signing off on.

Peer review doesn't need to choose between quick and careful. It needs infrastructure that makes careful quicker.

(Part of a series of blog posts for Peer Review Week - Peer Review Capacity: Volume, Speed, and Quality)