Scholarly peer review is under strain as submission volumes and expectations accelerate beyond the system’s capacity. Academic commentators and editors warn that journals and reviewers are overwhelmed, producing delays and quality concerns that threaten research credibility and the tenure pipeline. Experts call for structural fixes: better reviewer incentives, automated triage tools, and editorial reform to match modern publication velocity. The conversation spotlights funding agencies and university promotion committees because peer‑review outputs remain central to research evaluation and faculty advancement.