A Structured Reflection on Academic Generosity, Gatekeeping, and the Billion-Pound Publishing Machine
Peer review is one of academia’s most paradoxical practices. We give time, thought, and intellectual labour, for free, to uphold a publishing system that not only doesn’t pay us, but often charges us (or our institutions) to access the very work we helped vet.
Meanwhile, global academic publishing is a multi-billion-pound industry. Some of the largest publishers report profit margins upwards of 30%, exceeding those of most tech firms and pharmaceutical companies. And still, the vast majority of peer reviewers receive no compensation, little recognition, and few boundaries around how or when they’re expected to contribute.
So why do we keep showing up?
This guide is a reflection, not a justification. It honours the relational ethics that keep peer review alive, even within systems that routinely exploit them. And it asks what it might look like to participate, resist, or reimagine with greater intention.
1. Because It’s Still How the System Functions (For Now)
☑ Peer review is the filter, validator, and gatekeeper of academic publishing
☐ It shapes which voices and ideas make it to “publication”
☐ It sustains reputations, citations, and hiring pipelines
☐ It creates the appearance of scholarly rigour, regardless of how well it’s resourced
✍ I review because I want work in my field to meet a standard, one built on fairness, not profit
✍ Even if the structure is flawed, I still believe in responsible contribution
🟦 Prompt: Participating in a flawed system is not failure, it can be one way of upholding a better version from the inside.
2. Because We Still Believe in Intellectual Stewardship
Done well, peer review is not about gatekeeping. It’s about care.
☑ Thoughtful reviewing can:
☐ Help authors clarify and strengthen their voice
☐ Offer feedback that mentors as well as critiques
☐ Flag potential harm or exclusion before it becomes public
☐ Nurture emerging scholarship in fields that don’t always get funded or cited
✍ My goal when reviewing is to create the kind of space I wish I’d had as an author
✍ I’ve found meaning in offering thoughtful critique, even when the system didn’t reward it
🟦 Prompt: Peer review is one of the last places many academics get unfiltered feedback. Let yours carry both clarity and generosity.
3. Because We’re Shaped by What We’ve Received
Ask any researcher and they’ll likely tell you about that review, the one that was cruel, confusing, or condescending. They might also tell you about the one that saved their manuscript, taught them something new, or made them feel seen.
We carry these stories. And for many of us, they shape how we show up when it’s our turn.
✍ A phrase I use in reviews to invite growth, not shutdown, is ____________________________
✍ A good reviewer once helped me see ____________________________, and I try to pass that on
🟦 Prompt: Reviewing is generational. Be the kind that someone remembers with gratitude.
4. Because Reviewing Is One of the Few Ways to Shape the Conversation
Peer review gives you an early, often hidden role in influencing how your discipline grows.
☑ Reviewing can be a site of:
☐ Intellectual collaboration, even if indirect
☐ Pushing for inclusion, accessibility, or broader framing
☐ Elevating questions that might otherwise be edited out
☐ Connecting across geographical, methodological, or institutional divides
✍ I say yes to reviewing when the topic aligns with my commitments to ____________________________
✍ When I review, I think about who this work could reach, or leave behind
🟦 Prompt: You don’t have to be on a keynote stage to shape a field. Sometimes you just have to show up behind the scenes.
5. But Yes, We’re Doing It in the Middle of a Billion-Pound Industry
Let’s be honest: this labour sustains a wildly profitable system. The global academic publishing industry is worth more than £25 billion. Some of the largest publishing houses make margins of 30–40%, aided by free content (from authors) and free labour (from reviewers).
☑ Meanwhile:
☐ Review requests pile up disproportionately on marginalised scholars
☐ Most institutions don’t count review work in formal evaluations
☐ The cognitive and emotional load is real, and rarely acknowledged
☐ Open-access authors still pay, even when reviewers don’t get a penny
✍ I’ve started saying no when ____________________________
✍ One thing I wish journals or institutions would do differently is ____________________________
🟦 Prompt: Review is generous. But it shouldn’t be extractive. Say yes carefully. And say no freely.
Final Reflection: Between Resistance and Contribution
We’re all figuring this out. Some scholars are stepping back. Others are starting reviewer cooperatives. Some are pushing journals to share profits or offer credits. Others keep reviewing because someone once did it for them, and that mattered.
There is no one answer to why we still do it. But here’s the truth: peer review isn’t just holding up publishing, it’s holding up parts of academic culture that haven’t yet forgotten how to care.
✍ When I review, I’m choosing to value ____________________________, even if the system doesn’t yet do the same
You’re always welcome to view Gwenin for a selection of frameworks, or pop over to Spiralmore’s extended PDF collections. In addition, you’re always welcome to explore our more relaxed corner: the informal blog.
Gwenin: Clarity by Design 