8 September 2026
Celebrating Peer Review Week 2026 — “Peer Review Capacity: Volume, Speed, and Quality”
Peer Review Week is a global event celebrating the role peer review plays in safeguarding the quality and integrity of research. Each year, publishers, institutions, and researchers come together to reflect on what keeps that system working, and what it takes to keep it working at scale.
Academic journals keep growing, along with expectations from researchers for efficient editorial feedback and publication decisions. But reviewer capacity hasn't kept pace with the volume of paper submissions. The gap between what academia asks of reviewers and what reviewers have time to give is the story behind this year’s theme.
One thing hasn't changed, and won't: peer-review standards are non-negotiable for any journal that aims to publish high-quality, impactful research. And those standards exist because reviewers choose, voluntarily, to give their time and expertise. That's not something we take for granted—and for this reason we hold three commitments that shape our collaboration with more than 200,000 reviewers in a year.
First Commitment: Protecting reviewers’ time and judgment
Every submission passes initial checks before it ever reaches a reviewer, including ethics and scope checks and a scientific judgment call from an Academic Editor on whether a manuscript is worth external review at all. Finder2, a reviewer finder tool, then matches manuscripts to reviewers by actual publication record, to make sure an invitation is based on good fit between the article subject and the reviewers’ expertise.
Second Commitment: Ensuring high-quality, efficient processes
Getting matched with the right manuscript is the starting point, but how straightforward the process feels for a reviewer once they say yes matters just as much. Every review runs through MDPI's Submission System (SuSy), from standardized, easy-to-use forms to a named editor a reviewer can reach directly with questions, to clear guidelines that set expectations up front, making sure a thorough report has a clear structure from the start.
In our 2025 Voice of the Community survey (see below), SuSy's usability and the clarity of reviewer guidelines were among the most frequently cited positives.
Third Commitment: Recognizing and rewarding our peer reviewers
The reviewer pool of tomorrow depends on how well today’s reviewers are recognized, both by publishers and by the institutions that shape the reviewers’ careers. A reviewer's contribution doesn't end when their report is submitted, and neither does ours: APC discount vouchers, Outstanding Reviewer Awards, formal recognition through Web of Science, and a genuine path onto editorial boards for reviewers whose work stands out.
This year, MDPI’s Top 1000 Reviewers program recognized outstanding reviewers across every discipline for their performance over the past year. Of the 743 scholars who confirmed their award, 310 chose an APC voucher worth 1,000 CHF (Swiss francs) and 433 chose a 500 CHF cash award—a combined 526,500 CHF (approx. $650,000 USD) returned directly to the reviewer community in 2025.
A Standard We Keep Renewing
Consistency at scale isn’t a finished project, but a standard that needs renewal with every submission we receive. That’s what our three commitments are built around: making sure tomorrow’s reviewers are recognized and valued, so we can keep counting on their contribution.
Listening at Scale: Voice of the Community Survey
To consistently deliver and refine our commitments, we rely on our Voice of the Community survey, which tracks how reviewers and authors experience peer review at MDPI, and points us to areas where our community needs more support.
In the 2026 Reviewer Survey* (1,627 respondents), 86% rated their reviewing experience "Good" or "Excellent," 88% said the manuscript matched their expertise, 92% agreed that the instructions were clear and helpful, and 72% said they'd be likely to review for MDPI journals again.
When we asked what makes reviewers likely to review for MDPI again, one reason keeps rising to the top: aligning manuscript topic and reviewer expertise. It’s the answer we receive most frequently and its importance grew even further between the first and second quarter in 2026. It underlines why reviewer–expertise matching, through tools like Finder2, is central to that experience.
In the 2026 Author Survey* (16,795 respondents), 94% rated the peer review process as "Good" or "Excellent," and 95% agreed reviewers' comments helped improve their manuscript.
Every individual feedback shared through the survey shapes how we serve the average of more than 200,000 reviewers who work with MDPI each year.
*Data from 1 January–30 June 2026
Join the Conversation: MDPI Webinars During Peer Review Week
Webinar: The Reviewer’s Perspective — Navigating Volume, Speed, and Quality in Peer Review
Hear directly from four MDPI Top 1000 Reviewer Award winners on how they balance rigor with efficiency, manage increasing workloads, and contribute to a sustainable and high-quality peer review system — practical insight you can bring to your own reviews.
Webinar: UK Reviewer Club 2026
Join a conversation for reviewers, and anyone considering becoming one, based in the UK. Learn from shared experiences, practical challenges, and best practices to sharpen your own approach to peer review.
