Academic publishing has evolved from a scholarly service into a substantial commercial industry. Publishers generate revenue through article processing charges (APCs), subscriptions, licensing, advertising, and related services, while peer review and editorial work continue to depend on unpaid academic contributions. Recent disputes illustrate these tensions: the editorial boards of NeuroImage stepped down in 2023 amid concerns about publication charges, while the Journal of Human Evolution board resigned collectively in 2024 following disagreements with Elsevier over open-access fees and editorial support.
Elsevier, which publishes The Lancet Group’s 30 journals, recorded an adjusted operating profit of £1.035 billion (approximately US$1.393 billion) in 2025, with 7% underlying profit growth and a 38% profit margin. Meanwhile, The Lancet’s APC rose from US$5,000 in 2020 to US$9,550 in 2026, an increase of 91%. By March 2026, Scopus had indexed more than 33.5 million publications: 10.9 million in medicine and health sciences, 10.9 million in engineering and physical sciences, 8.1 million in life sciences, and 3.6 million in social sciences and humanities. Applying illustrative APCs to this cumulative volume yields approximately $6.7 billion at $200 per paper, $33.5 billion at $1,000, and $83.75–100.5 billion at $2,500–$3,000. These are illustrative estimates, not verified publisher revenues, because the publications span different periods and publishing models.
The implications for peer reviewers are particularly important for countries such as Pakistan. If Pakistani researchers account for an estimated 0.5% of global peer reviews, equivalent to approximately 167,619 manuscripts, the associated illustrative APC values would be $33.5 million at $200 per paper, $167.6 million at $1,000, and $502.9 million at $3,000. Under a 0.1% participation estimate, the corresponding values would range from approximately $6.7 million to $100.6 million. These figures do not represent money earned by publishers specifically from Pakistani reviewers; rather, they illustrate the financial scale of publishing alongside the largely uncompensated academic labour that supports it.
Pakistan’s approximately 32,640 PhD holders offer another perspective. If each reviewed three manuscripts, the combined contribution would approach 98,000 reviews, corresponding to approximately $49 million in illustrative APC value at $500 per paper. At six and twelve reviews per individual, the estimated values would rise to approximately $98 million and $196 million, respectively, using the same APC assumption.
Verified reviewer credits, workload adjustments and formal recognition in recruitment, promotion and performance evaluations are essential to acknowledging academic expertise, supporting research quality, educational standards and responsible knowledge production.
These estimates require caution because APCs vary, some journals charge none, and Pakistan’s share of global peer review remains unverified. Differences in reviewing complexity and intensity were also excluded. The calculations illustrate potential scale rather than actual revenues or reviewer compensation. Nevertheless, they highlight the scale of a scholarly contribution that remains largely unpaid and inconsistently recognised in academic performance assessments.
The consequences extend beyond financial fairness. Peer review identifies methodological weaknesses, challenges unsupported conclusions, improves reporting, and safeguards the reliability of published research. However, unpaid reviewing adds to academics’ teaching, supervision, research, and grant-writing responsibilities, potentially limiting the time available for thorough evaluation and research development, particularly in resource-constrained institutions.
These pressures may affect knowledge production and educational standards because reliable scientific literature informs university curricula, postgraduate research, professional training, and policy. In Pakistan and other low- and middle-income countries, researchers contribute to international publishing despite limited institutional resources, yet peer review is not consistently recognised in academic workloads, recruitment, promotion, or performance assessments. Addressing this imbalance requires both financial honoraria and formal institutional recognition, including verified reviewer credits, workload adjustments, and consideration in promotion and performance evaluations. Such measures would acknowledge reviewers’ expertise, encourage sustained participation, and support research quality, educational standards, and responsible knowledge production.