Peer review sits at the heart of scholarly publishing, helping publishers uphold research quality, integrity, and trust. But the environment in which peer review operates is changing. Submission volumes are rising, expectations for faster decisions are increasing, and reviewer availability remains limited. These pressures are making one question increasingly important: How can publishers build the capacity to optimally manage larger volumes without compromising the quality of peer review?
This question is at the center of Peer Review Week (PRW) 2026, taking place from September 14 to 18, under the theme “Peer Review Capacity: Volume, Speed, and Quality.” The theme was selected through a global poll that received 2,115 votes—the highest participation in PRW history—with peer review capacity receiving 40 percent of the votes.
Figure 1. Final results of the PRW 2026 theme poll. Source: Peer Review Week.
Capacity Is More than Handling More Manuscripts
For publishers, capacity cannot simply mean processing a greater number of submissions. Every manuscript brings with it a series of activities before an editorial decision can be reached, from initial checks and reviewer identification to managing invitations, monitoring reviews, conducting integrity checks, communicating with authors, and supporting editors.
As volumes increase, pressure at any one of these stages can affect the entire workflow. Reviewer searches may take longer, editorial teams may spend more time on administrative activities, and authors may wait longer for decisions. Building capacity therefore requires looking at the peer review process as a whole rather than addressing individual bottlenecks in isolation.
Finding the Balance between Volume, Speed, and Quality
The three elements of the PRW 2026 theme are closely connected. Publishers need to manage increasing volumes, but authors also expect timely decisions. At the same time, neither volume nor speed can come at the expense of rigorous evaluation.
The challenge is to identify where time and editorial effort can be used more effectively. Repetitive checks, reviewer searches, reminders, follow-ups, and workflow administration can all consume significant resources. Streamlining these activities can create more capacity while still allowing editors and reviewers to focus on work that genuinely requires their expertise.
Reviewer capacity is equally important. Better reviewer identification, relevant invitations, effective communication, and greater reviewer recognition can all contribute to a more sustainable peer review process. PRW 2026 itself identifies supporting and recognizing reviewers as one of the important areas for discussion this year.
Where Technology Can Create Capacity
Technology has an important role to play in addressing these pressures. Reviewer identification, manuscript screening, plagiarism detection, image screening, research integrity checks, reminders, and workflow tracking are all areas where technology can help reduce repetitive effort and improve efficiency.
But increasing the use of technology does not mean removing people from the peer review process. Editorial expertise remains essential to evaluating research, interpreting potential integrity concerns, selecting appropriate reviewers, and making informed decisions.
The need of the hour is to use technology to support people rather than replace their judgment. When routine and administrative activities are handled more efficiently, editors and reviewers have more time to focus on the intellectual and evaluative work that makes up the core of peer review.
Building Sustainable Peer Review Capacity
There may not be a single solution to the capacity challenge. Sustainable peer review requires the right combination of people, processes, technology, and flexible editorial resources.
For publishers, this could mean strengthening reviewer management, introducing appropriate automation, improving research integrity screening, standardizing workflows, or accessing additional editorial support when internal teams face capacity constraints. A managed approach can also allow publishers to strengthen specific parts of the pre-acceptance workflow while still retaining editorial oversight and control.
At Amnet ContentSource, our approach to managed peer review brings together experienced editorial professionals and technology-enabled workflows to support publishers across the pre-acceptance journey. The objective is not simply to move manuscripts faster but to help create workflows that can respond to changing editorial demands while maintaining high levels of editorial quality and research integrity.
From Capacity to Capability
PRW 2026 provides an opportunity for the scholarly publishing community to look beyond the immediate pressures on peer review and consider what a more sustainable model should look like.
The question is not simply how many more manuscripts can the system handle or how quickly can it handle them. The more important question is whether peer review can grow while continuing to deliver the high quality, trust, integrity, and fairness on which scholarly communication depends. This is where turning peer review capacity into long-term capability becomes important.
