I've been thinking a lot about the structural expectations around peer review lately, especially as someone trying to be a conscientious member of a research community. There's this unspoken norm that you just say yes when requests come in, partly out of obligation and partly because you know the system collapses if people don't participate. But the math never quite adds up. Journals profit, editors are often volunteers or minimally compensated, and reviewers get nothing except maybe a discount on an APC they shouldn't have to pay in the first place. Meanwhile, the time cost is real and it compounds across a career. I'm curious how people at different career stages actually handle this in practice. Do senior faculty decline more often, or does visibility in a field just mean more requests piling up? Do earlycareer researchers feel pressure to say yes to everything to build reputation? Is there any department or institutional culture you've encountered that actively normalizes putting a cap on review work? I'm not looking to opt out entirely. Contributing does have value. I just want to understand how people handle it without burning out or feeling like they're being extracted from. Would love to hear from people across disciplines and career stages submitted by /u/No-Communication1543 [link] [comments]