I think that the Editors are doing due diligence by ensuring that the paper undergo thorough scrutiny to protect the integrity of the journal.

Yes, the journals used to achieve that through peer reviewing with 2 to 3 reviewers for decades. I think if they need extra scrutiny they have to compensate reviewers for the consumed time and efforts.

Reviewers sometimes feel overwhelmed or even bored due to the large number of manuscripts they are asked to evaluate. It may therefore be more effective if journals allocate clearer timelines and reasonable deadlines for reviewers. This would allow them to provide more accurate and thoughtful feedback without unnecessary pressure.

Normal Peer Review Practice

Traditionally, most journals send manuscripts to 2–3 referees. This number is considered sufficient to ensure:

• Scientific rigor (at least two independent assessments).
• Fairness (reducing the chance of bias from a single reviewer).
• Efficiency (avoiding undue delays and reviewer burden).

Guidelines from organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) emphasize timely, fair, and transparent review processes, but they do not mandate a fixed number of reviewers. The expectation, however, is that reviewer burden should be minimized and the process should remain proportionate to the goal of quality assurance (COPE, 2017).

Why Editors Sometimes Use More Reviewers

Some editors may invite a larger number of reviewers (sometimes 6–10), but usually this is because:

In most cases, not all invited reviewers accept, and the journal will proceed once 2–3 detailed reviews are received.

Concerns About Exploitation

• Editors request reviews from 6–10 people without transparency, even when 2–3 reviews would suffice.
• Reviewers are asked for “courtesy reviews” where their input is not essential to the editorial decision.
• It contributes to reviewer fatigue, a well-recognized problem in academia, especially in medical and life sciences (Publons Global State of Peer Review Report, 2018).

Balanced View

• Unjustified: If journals consistently require 6–10 reports before making a decision, this is excessive, risks slowing the process, and contributes to burnout.
• Justified: If editors invite more reviewers because of low acceptance rates or interdisciplinary needs, and stop once sufficient reviews are received, this is within reason.

Conclusion

It is not inherently exploitative for editors to invite more than three reviewers, but requiring all of them to complete reviews when two or three would suffice is unjustified and burdens the community. Good editorial practice should aim for quality, fairness, and efficiency, consistent with COPE guidelines.

References

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2017). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. COPE Council.
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2022). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
• Publons. (2018). Global State of Peer Review Report.

Many thanks Akshunna for the thorough and referenced discussion.

I suggest that a structural reform on the review process will improve both the performance of reviewing and increase the response rate of acceptance of reviewing. The suggestion, is to compensate reviewers financially and preserve their intellectual rights. The financial part will curb excessive reviewing by the editors while the inclusion of the reviewers name and comments in a section of the article will improve both the response rate and the quality of reviewing.

Well, some papers cut across fields, and so editors may seek input from different disciplinary perspectives