In addition to publication and knowledge dissemination, the selection and peer review of scientific articles are among the central contributions of journals to scholarly communication. Feedback from researchers about inconsistencies in the review process and the resignation of entire editorial teams following a dispute about journal business models point to problems that often concern the interaction between academic editors and commercial publishers. In order to provide empirical evidence regarding expectations and perceptions towards the peer review process, this study reports the results of two experimental factorial surveys embedded in a two-country study across 25 German and Swiss research institutions. It uses answers submitted by more than 3,200 scholars across 15 scientific fields on the topic of review and decision practices to further the debate about the future of scholarly publishing given existing role conflicts, extractive entrepreneurial strategies and potential decrease in scientific quality.
Neumann et al. (2026) studied this question.