The Price of Speed: Economic, Ethical, and Social Inequalities of Fast-Track Review in Academic Publishing
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Fast-track review services in academic publishing offer authors expedited peer review in exchange for substantial fees, raising critical concerns about equity, ethics, and the structural dynamics of scholarly communication. This paper examines the economic, ethical, and social dimensions of fast-track review fees, drawing on international literature and the challenges faced by researchers in resource-constrained environments, with particular reference to the case of Greece, where such fees can equal a full month’s salary for a senior academic. The economic analysis traces the growth of the article processing charge market and demonstrates how the cumulative burden of publication and fast-track fees creates a two-tier system that privileges financially advantaged researchers while marginalising others. The ethical analysis addresses coercive dynamics in supervisory relationships, the distortion of research agendas, the intersection with predatory publishing, and the failure of current arrangements to satisfy Rawlsian principles of distributive justice. The social and institutional analysis examines the intensification of publish-or-perish culture, the role of global university rankings in reinforcing demand for expedited publication, the erosion of trust in peer review, and the distortion of mentorship and international collaboration patterns. The paper concludes that the commercialisation of publication speed functions as a structural mechanism of inequality that demands systemic reform.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Banerjee, A. (2022). The Story of Writing and Publishing a Research Article: An Autoethnographic Account of an Early Career Researcher (ECR) in India. The Qualitative Report, 27(8), 1445-1461. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5470 DOI: https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5470
Bayanbayeva, A. (2026). The impact of the ‘publish or perish’ culture on research practices and academic life in Kazakhstan: challenges and consequences in the age of global university rankings. Higher Education Research & Development, 45(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2526051 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2526051
Beall, J. (2016). Ban predators from the scientific record. Nature, 534(7607), 326. https://doi.org/10.1038/534326a DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/534326a
Björk, B., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914-923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.03.008
Borrego, Á. (2023). Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review. Learned Publishing, 36(3), 359-378. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1558 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1558
Bosman, J., Frantsvåg, J. E., Kramer, B., Langlais, P.-C., & Proudman, V. (2021). OA diamond journals study. Part 1: Findings. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4558704
Cagan, R. (2013). The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Disease Models & Mechanisms, 6(4), 869-870. https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.012955 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.012955
Çakir, A., Kuyurtar, D., & Balyer, A. (2024). The effects of the publish or perish culture on publications in the field of educational administration in Türkiye. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 9, 100817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.100817 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.100817
Carroll, K. A., East, A., Gao, X., McMullen, J. G., & Emery, N. (2025). Early-Career Publishing and Reviewing: Pitfalls and Perspectives. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 106(3), e70023. https://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.70023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.70023
Chen, X., Gupta, S., Russo, S., Sitzia, G., Westbrook, A., White, S. R., & JNeurosci Early Career Researcher Advisory Board (2024). Including Early Career Researchers in Scientific Publishing. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 44(23), e0907242024. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0907-24.2024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0907-24.2024
Cohen, A., & Baruch, Y. (2022). Abuse and exploitation of doctoral students: A conceptual model for traversing a long and winding road to academia. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(2), 505-522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04905-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04905-1
Connell, R. (2007). Southern Theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117346 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117346
De Rond, M., & Miller, A. N. (2005). Publish or Perish: Bane or Boon of Academic Life? Bane or Boon of Academic Life? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(4), 321-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492605276850 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492605276850
Drach, I., Petroye, O., Borodiyenko, O., Reheilo, I., & Slobodianiuk, O. (2025). A New Methodology for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Research Activities: The View of Experts in the Field of Social Sciences. International Scientific Journal of Universities and Leadership, 20, 72-84. https://doi.org/10.31874/2520-6702-2025-20-72-84 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31874/2520-6702-2025-20-72-84
Drozdz, J. A., & Ladomery, M. R. (2024). The peer review process: Past, present, and future. British Journal of Biomedical Science, 81, 12054. https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2024.12054 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2024.12054
Elmore, S. A. (2018). Preprints: What Role Do These Have in Communicating Scientific Results? Toxicologic pathology, 46(4), 364-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623318767322 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623318767322
Ertem-Eray, T., & Cheng, Y. (2025). A Review of Artificial Intelligence Research in Peer-Reviewed Communication Journals. Applied Sciences, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031058 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031058
Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open science: One term, five schools of thought. In S. Bartling and S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science (pp. 17-47). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
Fraser, N., Brierley, L., Dey, G., Polka, J. K., Pálfy, M., Nanni, F., & Coates, J. A. (2021). The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. PLOS Biology, 19(4), e3000959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959
Frass, W., Cross, J., & Gardner, V. (2013). Open access survey: Exploring the views of Taylor & Francis and Routledge authors. Taylor & Francis Group.
Friedensen, R. E., Bettencourt, G. M. & Bartlett, M. L. (2024). Power-conscious ecosystems: understanding how power dynamics in US doctoral advising shape students’ experiences. Higher Education, 87, 149-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-00998-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-00998-x
Giray, L. (2024). Benefits and Challenges of Using AI for Peer Review: A Study on Researchers’ Perceptions. The Serials Librarian, 85(5-6), 144-154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2024.2428377 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2024.2428377
Gonzalez, P., Wilson, G. S., & Purvis, A. J. (2022). Peer review in academic publishing: Challenges in achieving the gold standard. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 19(5), 1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53761/1.19.5.1
Grossmann, A., & Brembs, B. (2021). Current market rates for scholarly publishing services. F1000Research, 10, 20. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27468.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27468.1
Halevi, G., & Walsh, S. (2021). Faculty Attitudes Towards Article Processing Charges for Open Access Articles. Publishing Research Quarterly, 37, 384-398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09820-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09820-x
Haustein, S., Schares, E., Alperin, J. P., Hare, M., Butler, L. A., & Schönfelder, N. (2024). Estimating global article processing charges paid to six publishers for open access between 2019 and 2023. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16551
Horta, H., & Jung, J. (2024). The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science. Higher Education Quarterly, 78(4), e12511. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12511 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12511
Jawaid, S. A. (2017). Importance of Publication Audit, fast track processing and categorization of manuscripts. Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 33(2), 513-516. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.332.12858 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.332.12858
Jung, Y., Lee, J. Y., Lee, J., An, B.-G., Kim, W. J., & Park, J. (2025). Article processing charge costs of open access articles indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection from 2019 to 2023 by publisher and country: A secondary publication. Science Editing, 12(2), 114-123. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.370 DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.370
Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. EJIFCC, 25(3), 227-243.
Khoo, S. Y.-S. (2019). Article Processing Charge Hyperinflation and Price Insensitivity: An Open Access Sequel to the Serials Crisis. Liber Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 29(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10280 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10280
Kochetkov, D. (2024). University rankings in the context of research evaluation: A state-of-the-art review. Quantitative Science Studies, 5(3), 533-555. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00317 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00317
Kotsis, K. T. (2024). The scientific literacy enables policymakers to legislate on artificial intelligence. European Journal of Political Science Studies, 7(1), 69-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejpss.v7i1.1682 DOI: https://doi.org/10.46827/ejpss.v7i1.1682
Kotsis, K. T. (2025a). Legality of employing artificial intelligence for writing academic papers in education. Journal of Contemporary Philosophical and Anthropological Studies, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.59652/jcpas.v3i1.375 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59652/jcpas.v3i1.375
Kotsis, K. T. (2025b). The role of ChatGPT in academic writing: Pedagogical and ethical dimensions. EthAIca, 4, 420. https://doi.org/10.56294/ai2025420 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56294/ai2025420
Kotsis, K. T. (2025c). Artificial intelligence as a catalyst for changes in university-level science education. EIKI Journal of Effective Teaching Methods, 3(3), 99-109. https://doi.org/10.59652/jetm.v3i3.618 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59652/jetm.v3i3.618
Kotsis, K. T. (2025d). Integrating artificial intelligence into higher education curricula: Challenges and opportunities for science-based programs. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Engineering and Transformation, 6(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.54660/IJAIET.2025.6.1.04-12 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54660/IJAIET.2025.6.1.04-12
Kotsis, K. T. (2026). Artificial Intelligence in Science Education: An Integrative Review of Personalized Learning, Ethics, and Policy Challenges. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technological Development, 2(1), 61-68. https://doi.org/10.59324/jaitd.2026.2(1).06 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59324/jaitd.2026.2(1).06
Kozak, M. (2025). The science publishing manifesto: AI moves fast, science publishing must too. Journal of Documentation, 81(5-6), 1357-1369. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2025-0118 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2025-0118
Kronick, D. A. (1990). Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA, 263(10), 1321-1322. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100021002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100021002
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLoS One, 10(6), e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
Li, H., & Yin, Z. (2023). Influence of publication on university ranking: Citation, collaboration, and level of interdisciplinary research. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 55(3), 828-835. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221106178 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221106178
Luwel, M., van Eck, N. J., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2020). Characteristics of publication delays over the period 2000-2016. In C. Daraio and W. Glänzel (Eds.), Evaluative informetrics: The art of metrics-based research assessment (pp. 89-114). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47665-6_4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47665-6_4
Mboa Nkoudou, T. H. (2020). Epistemic alienation in African scholarly communications: Open access as a Pharmakon. In M. P. Eve and J. Gray (Eds.), Reassembling scholarly communications: Histories, infrastructures, and global politics of open access (pp. 25-40). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.003.0006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11885.003.0006
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.38 10.56 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
Nguyen, A. B. T., Pham, H.-H., Nguyen, T.-T., & Nguyen, A. V. L. (2025). Predatory Journals: How Should We Understand and Evaluate Them? Vietnam Journal of Education, 9(3), 454-461. https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2025.718 DOI: https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2025.718
Pinfield, S., Salter, J., & Bath, P. A. (2016). The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open-access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(7), 1751-1766. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23446 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23446
Proctor, D. M., Dada, N., Serquiña, A., & Willett, J. L. E. (2023). Problems with Peer Review Shine a Light on Gaps in Scientific Training. MBio, 14(3), e0318322. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.03183-22 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.03183-22
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9z6v DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9z6v
Resnik, D. B. (1998). The ethics of science: An introduction. Routledge.
Škorić, L., Glasnović, A., & Petrak, J. (2020). A publishing pandemic during the COVID-19 pandemic: how challenging can it become? Croatian medical journal, 61(2), 79-81. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2020.61.79 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2020.61.79
Solomon, D., & Björk, B. (2016). Article processing charges for open access publication, the situation for research intensive universities in the USA and Canada. PeerJ, 4, e2264. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2264 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2264
Spier R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in biotechnology, 20(8), 357-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-7799(02)01985-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6
Strevens, M. (2006). The role of the Matthew effect in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(2), 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.07.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.07.009
Suber, P. (2012). Open access. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9286.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9286.001.0001
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Yamada, Y. (2022). Accelerated peer review and paper processing models in academic publishing. Publishing Research Quarterly, 38, 599-611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09891-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09891-4
Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., ...Colomb, J. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6, 1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.1
Trueblood, J. S., Allison, D. B., Field, S. M., Fishbach, A., Gaillard, S. D., Gigerenzer, G., …Teodorescu, A. R. (2025). The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(5), e2401231121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401231121 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jrczf
Van Noorden, R. (2023). More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023, a new record. Nature, 624(7992), 479-481. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8
Vervoort, D., Ma, X., & Shrime, M. G. (2020). Money down the drain: predatory publishing in the COVID-19 era. Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 111(5), 665-666. https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-020-00411-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-020-00411-5
Wenaas, L. (2022). Choices of immediate open access and the relationship to journal ranking and publish-and-read deals. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 7, 943932. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.943932 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.943932
Yoon, J., Ku, H., & Chung, E. (2024). The road to sustainability: Examining key drivers in open access diamond journal publishing. Learned Publishing, 37(3), e1611. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1611 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1611
Yoon, J., Rorissa, A., Kim, N. & Chung, E. (2025). Characteristics of OA Diamond Journal Publishing in Non-English-Speaking Countries. Libri, 75(1), 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2024-0026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2024-0026
Zhao, K., Li, J., & Liang, H. (2026). Reconfiguring power: a field analysis of China’s research evaluation reform. Higher Education, 91, 1469-1486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-025-01480-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-025-01480-6
Zhu, Y., Lu, Y., Xie, H., Ye, J., & Chen, M. (2025). A quasi-experimental analysis of capabilities and limitations of generative AI in academic content evaluation in social sciences. Information Processing & Management, 63(1), 104365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104365 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104365