You have probably heard an instructor say, “Make sure you use peer-reviewed sources.” But what exactly does that mean and why should you care?
Peer Review Week 2026, held September 14–18, offers a good opportunity to answer that question. This year’s theme, “Peer Review Capacity: Volume, Speed, and Quality,” focuses on a growing challenge in academic publishing: researchers are producing more scholarship, there is pressure to publish it faster, and journals still need to make sure that the research they publish meets appropriate standards.
For students, this debate matters because peer review affects the sources you find, read, cite, and rely upon in your own research.
What Happens During Peer Review?
Before many scholarly articles are published, they are evaluated by other researchers who have expertise in the subject. These reviewers examine the research and provide feedback to the journal’s editor and often to the author. They might ask: Does the evidence support the author’s conclusions? Are the research methods appropriate? Has the author overlooked important scholarship? Are there problems that need to be corrected?
Based on these questions, the editor will decide if the article should be accepted, rejected, or returned to the author for revisions. Peer review does not guarantee that an article is correct. Reviewers can miss problems, researchers can disagree, and published research can later be challenged or corrected. Instead, think of peer review as an important quality-control process that helps improve scholarship before publication.
More Research, Faster Decisions
The 2026 Peer Review Week theme highlights a difficult problem. Scholarly publishing has to balance three competing demands: volume, speed, and quality.
More research means more articles requiring review. Researchers also want decisions quickly. Waiting months for an article to be reviewed can delay publication, graduation, job applications, grant projects, or the communication of important findings. But reviewing an article carefully takes time. Reviewers need to examine arguments, evidence, research methods, citations, and conclusions. If the system focuses too heavily on speed, the quality of reviews could suffer. That creates an important question: How do we make scholarly communication faster without making it less trustworthy?
What About AI?
Artificial intelligence adds another dimension to the conversation. AI tools may help journals with tasks such as screening manuscripts, identifying possible reviewers, checking references, or handling administrative work. But using AI in peer review also raises questions. Should confidential manuscripts be entered into AI systems? Could an AI system introduce bias? Should authors know when AI has been used to evaluate their work? And who is responsible when an AI-assisted review gets something wrong? These questions are still evolving, making AI literacy increasingly important to understanding scholarly communication.
What Does This Mean for Your Research?
The next time you are told to “find three peer-reviewed articles,” think beyond simply checking a box on an assignment. Ask questions about the sources you find. Who wrote this? Where was it published? What evidence does the author provide? How recent is it? Has other research supported or challenged its conclusions?
Peer review is valuable, but it should be the beginning of your evaluation of a source, not the end. This point is the most useful lesson of Peer Review Week 2026. Good research is not simply about finding information. It is about understanding how knowledge is created, evaluated, challenged, improved, and ultimately trusted.
Peer Review Week Events
You can view the complete list of webinars and blogs here. I have added a few titles below to help you get started with understanding the peer review process:
Live Demo: From Submission to Decision – A Live Peer Review Walkthrough September 15, 9:00AM EST
What is it really like to review a manuscript? Step into the role of a peer reviewer and experience the process firsthand. Through a live review walkthrough, you’ll explore how reviewers evaluate a manuscript’s quality, originality, methodology, clarity, and overall contribution.
Live Panel Discussion: Reviewer Fatigue, Invisible Labor, and the Sustainability Problem September 16, 11:00AM EST
Peer review keeps scholarly publishing moving but how long can the system continue to rely on the goodwill of volunteer reviewers? As reviewer fatigue and increasing workloads put pressure on the process, it may be time to rethink who carries the burden. Should publishers ask less of reviewers? Should universities recognize reviewing as a meaningful scholarly contribution? Should authors take on a greater share of the responsibility? Join experts for a timely discussion about the pressures facing peer review, how responsibilities might be shared more fairly, and what needs to change to create a sustainable peer review system for the future.
Can Reviewers Realistically Avoid the Use of AI in Peer Review? September 16, 10:00AM EST
Many major academic publishers and organizations currently restrict or prohibit the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in peer review. At the same time, researchers are increasingly using AI tools throughout the research and writing process, potentially accelerating manuscript production and increasing submission volumes. Instead of asking whether AI should simply be kept out of peer review, this session explores a more challenging question: What would responsible AI-assisted peer review actually look like? If current restrictions were relaxed, what uses of AI should be considered acceptable and where should the boundaries be drawn?
Behind the Peer Review: What Editors Actually Look For September 28, 2:00PM EST (later date)
What makes a manuscript stand out from the crowd? What sends it back for another round of revisions? And what turns a promising paper into one that’s ready for publication? Take a look behind the scenes of academic publishing and discover what editors are really looking for. From significance and originality to methodological rigor, clarity, and fit, learn the key factors editors consider when deciding whether a manuscript moves forward—or needs more work.
Share perspectives and experiences on social media using #PeerReviewWeek and #PRW2026.
Kevin Gunn is the Coordinator of Digital Scholarship at The Catholic University of America Libraries and the former editor-in-chief of College & Undergraduate Libraries (peer reviewed journal from Francis & Taylor).
References
Maryam Sayab, Roohi Ghosh, Maria Machado, Gareth Dyke, Mingfang Lu. Can Peer Review Keep Up? Announcing the Theme for Peer Review Week 2026. The Scholarly Kitchen. April 20, 2026.