Abstract
Introduction: Free open-access scientific journals, known as diamond open access, that charge neither submission nor publication fees play a central role in the democratization of knowledge. However, they face growing difficulty in recruiting and retaining voluntary peer reviewers, jeopardizing editorial flow and the timeliness of responses to authors.
Objective: To analyze the causes and consequences of the peer review crisis in these journals, its impacts on scientific dissemination, and to formulate an appeal to the academic community for responsible engagement in this process.
Conclusion: Voluntary peer review is a public good of science. Its preservation requires institutional recognition, equitable redistribution of responsibilities, and the recovery of researchers' collective awareness of their role in the scientific ecosystem.
References
Yoon J, Ku H, Chung E. The road to sustainability: Examining key drivers in open access diamond journal publishing. Learned Publishing. [Online] 2024;37(3):e1611. Available from: doi:10.1002/leap.1611
SciELO Brasil. Critérios, política e procedimentos para a admissão e permanência de periódicos na Coleção SciELO Brasil [Online]. São Paulo: FAPESP; 2022 [cited]. Available from: https://www.scielo.br/media/files/20220900-criterios-scielo-brasil.pdf
Marques F. O futuro do acesso aberto [online]. Pesquisa FAPESP. 2016 Jul [cited];(245). Available from: https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/o-futuro-do-acesso-aberto/
Gonzalez P, Wilson GS, Purvis AJ. Peer review in academic publishing: Challenges in achieving the gold standard. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. [Online] 2022;19(5):01. Available from: https://open-publishing.org/journals/index.php/jutlp/article/view/602/602
Tropini C, Finlay BB, Nichter M, Melby MK, Metcalf JL, Dominguez-Bello MG, et al. Time to rethink academic publishing: the peer reviewer crisis. mBio. [Online] 2023;14(6):e01091-23. Available from: doi:10.1128/mbio.01091-23
Ashley J. The peer review crisis: delays, bias, and burnout [online]. EditorsCafé, 2025 May 20 [cited]. Available from: https://editorscafe.org/details.php?id=68
Oliveira JB. The challenge of reviewers scarcity in academic journals: payment as a viable solution. Einstein (São Paulo). [Online] 2024. Available from: doi:10.31744/einstein_journal/2024ED1194
Horta H, Jung J. The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science. Higher Education Quarterly [Online] 2024;78(4):e12511. Available from: doi:10.1111/hequ.12511
Fernandez-Llimos F. Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers. Pharmacy Practice. [Online] 2018 Jan-Mar;16(1):1236. Available from: doi:10.18549/PharmPract.2018.01.1236
Farias MGG, Santos GC. Avaliações de produções científicas: desafios e motivações de editores e avaliadores. Encontros Bibli [Online]. 2023;28:e92858. doi:10.5007/1518-2924.2023.e92858.
Werlang NB, Blattmann U. Aporte institucional das Instituições de Ensino Superior aos Editores de Periódicos Científicos. Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação [Online] 2022 Oct-Dec;27(4):81-107. Available from: doi:10.1590/1981-5344/26694
Sayab M. Diamond Dreams, Unequal Realities: The Promise and Pitfalls of No-APC Open Access [online]. The Scholarly Kitchen, 2025 Oct 15 [cited]. Available from: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2025/10/15/diamond-dreams-unequal-realities-the-promise-and-pitfalls-of-no-apc-open-access/
Spinak E. Revisão por pares – sobre as estruturas e os conteúdos [online]. SciELO em Perspectiva, 2018 May 30 [cited]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2018/05/30/revisao-por-pares-sobre-as-estruturas-e-os-conteudos/
Slemian A, Couto KC, Vieira MV. O processo de avaliação por pares e a ciência aberta: um nó górdio para os periódicos na área de História? [Editorial]. Revista Brasileira de História [Online] 2022 May-Aug;42(90). Available from: doi:10.1590/1806-93472022v42n90-0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Physical Education