The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The peer-review crisis: how to fix an overloaded system
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This expectation adds further strain to an already stretched system and contributes to a peer review crisis that transcends disciplinary boundaries (Adam 2025) and is reflective of the working conditions of contemporary academia, marked by publishing expectations and high workloads across the globe.”
From Reflecting on 40 Years of New Technology, Work and Employment: Insights From the Current Editors on the Past and Prospects for the Future (2026) · cites this paper as Adam 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The strain on scientific publishing
Hanson, M. A., Barreiro, P. G., Crosetto, P., & Brockington, D. (2024) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00327 · Cited by 345
A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review
Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., & Holcombe, A. O. (2021) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2 · Cited by 306
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Bro, T. & Hammarfelt, B. Acta Ophthalmologica 100, 559–563 (2022) · DOI
- Tropini, C. et al. mBio 14, e01091-23 (2023). · DOI
- Yu, H., Liang, Y. & Xie, Y. Human. Soc. Sci. Commun. 11, 1557 (2024). · DOI
- Cotton, C. S., Alam, A., Tosta, S., Buchman, T. & Maslove, D. Crit. Care Med. 53, e1181–e1189 (2025). · DOI
- Gorelick, D. A. & Clark, A. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.18.644032 (2025). · DOI
- Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P. & Trinquart, L. PLoS ONE 11, e0166387 (2016). · DOI
- Bergstrom, C. T. & Gross, K. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.10734 (2025). · DOI
- Malički, M. & Mehmani, B. PeerJ 12, e17514 (2024). · DOI
- van der Meer, M., Antheunis, M. L. & Haverkort, B. R. Res. Eval. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae023 (2024). · DOI
Cited by
Large language models for peer review in biotechnology
Li, W., Zhao, R., Sun, P.-T., Lee, J., Lu, O., Yuan, S., Sureshkumar, P., Chen, Y., Xiao, Z., & Tang, Y. J. (2026) · New Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2026.03.007 · Cited by 4
Liu, J., He, Y., Zheng, Z., Bu, Y., & Ni, C. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.15872 · Cited by 1
“Excessive automation could flood editorial systems with low-quality or redundant submissions (35, 36), as illustrated by the recent NIH decision to limit individual investigators to six annual grant applications after reports of AI-generated proposals (37).”
Hodder, A., Valizade, D., Hardy, K., MacKenzie, R., & Smith, A. (2026) · New Technology, Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/ntwe.70054
Metadata
- Authors
- Adam, D.
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2025-08-06
- Volume
- 644
- Issue
- 8075
- Pages
- 24-27
- ISSN
- 0028-0836
- 1476-4687
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
- Licence
- www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/text-and-data-mining (tdm)
- www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/text-and-data-mining (vor)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The peer-review crisis: how to fix an overloaded system. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/d41586-025-02457-2
- The paper
- Adam, D. (2025). The peer-review crisis: how to fix an overloaded system. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02457-2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
