Dr. Mohammad Karamouzian calls for a systematic change in the peer-review structure in academia. 

Its current format, which relies on unpaid labour from researchers, assigns additional responsibilities to overworked scientists juggling multiple roles in research, teaching, mentorship, and community engagement. 

Despite the effort, time, and expertise researchers dedicate to peer-reviewed papers, they receive no compensation, minimal acknowledgement of their work, and little support from journals. Flaws in the peer-review system contribute to delays, researcher fatigue, and declining quality in publications.

Major journals in the academic publishing industry generate enough profit margins to surpass tech giants like Apple, Google, and Microsoft in a year. The lack of financial compensation collides with the unpaid work produced by researchers. 

To address these issues, proposals to salvage peer-review include:

1. Paying researchers for reviews to maintain scientific rigour
2. Disclosure of reviewer identities, comments, and article rejections in journal publications 
3. Deviate from the emphasis on article publications as a metric of research productivity
4. Explore alternative peer-review models (e.g., post-publication reviews, collaborative review platforms, AI-assisted screening processes)

Without meaningful change, the peer-review system maintains its unsustainable reliance on researchers. Dr. Karamouzian calls for a transparent, equitable, and ethical structure for future generations.

For more information, read the full article here.