The academic publishing industry has built a billion-dollar empire around research dissemination. Authors are charged hefty Article Processing Charges (APCs), libraries pay massive subscription fees, and yet the entire system still runs on the unpaid labor of peer reviewers.

Let’s be honest: without reviewers, journals cannot function. They cannot maintain quality, credibility, or trust. Yet, despite being central to the system, reviewers are treated as if their time and expertise have no value. We are expected to review promptly, thoroughly, and for free while publishers pocket the profits.

This is exploitation dressed up as “academic service.” It’s a model that thrives on the goodwill of researchers while giving little or nothing back. Recognition tokens, certificates, or “thank you” emails are not compensation. If journals demand timely, high-quality reviews, they must be ready to pay for them just as they pay for copyediting, typesetting, or website maintenance.

It’s time for a paradigm shift. Reviewers are not invisible labor. Our intellectual effort is the backbone of academic publishing, and it deserves fair treatment. Until publishers reckon with this imbalance, the system will remain deeply unjust.

A fair model is possible, one that benefits all stakeholders. Such includes:

• Micro-payments for reviewers: A small percentage (10–15%) of the APC should be reserved specifically for reviewer compensation.
• Tiered rewards: Basic reviews receive modest payment, while outstanding reviews are rewarded with higher compensation and formal recognition.
• Voucher system: Reviewers earn credits they can use to offset their own APCs, conference fees, or open-access costs.
• Institutional support funds: Universities and publishers can co-create reviewer compensation funds to spread responsibility fairly.
• Transparency: Publishers should disclose exactly how APC revenue is allocated, so the community sees where the money goes.

Adopting this paradigm shift would not only correct the imbalance but also make the reviewing exercise more competitive and attractive. With fair compensation and recognition, more researchers would be motivated to participate, raising both the quality and timeliness of reviews. Ultimately, this creates a win–win situation: authors benefit from better feedback, journals uphold higher standards, and reviewers receive the fair deal they deserve. It is time to move beyond outdated practices and build a publishing ecosystem that values every contributor equally.