Estuaries and Coasts Data Explains Why Peer Review is Slow and There is a Reviewing Crisis

Abstract There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that peer review takes too long, and that it is now taking longer than in the past. But what does the data say? To answer this question, an anonymized version of the peer-review database for the journal Estuaries and Coasts from 2007 to 2025 was downloaded and analyzed. Rejection happens quicker (mean 169 days, median 102 days) than acceptance (mean 250 days, median 223 days), because revisions require additional manuscript processing time. Thus, for change in review time, analysis was confined to first decisions only. It has become much harder to find reviewers over time. On average, only four invitations were required to obtain two reviews for manuscripts submitted in 2007, but this increased to eight invitations to obtain two reviews in 2025. Non-response to review invitations was relatively constant up to 2020 but increased 4-fold by 2025. Ironically, even though it is harder to find reviewers, total time to acceptance has dropped by about 50 days over 17 years. The shorter decision times are due to reviewers completing reviews much faster over time. So, while it takes longer to secure reviews, reviews are being performed faster, leading to a reduction in total time to a final decision. The lack of response by reviewers slows down the review process because of the time it takes to wait for invitation response and creating new invitations to review. The lack of response to invitations and the rejection of invitations creates a crisis in peer review.