Peer review,
paid and on time.

The problem

Nobody wants to review any more, and editors are paying for it in months.

The same few hundred people in each field get every request, and they are burning out. First decisions take months, and authors leave for faster journals. Our co-founder Philip Croon reviews for cardiology journals and sits on an editorial board, so he sees this from both sides.

22%

of review invitations were accepted in 2024, down from 43% in 2018.

4.5

invitations for every review an editor secures, nearly double 2018.

407

days that editors wait, per 100 invitations, on people who decline or never reply.

Silverchair, Future of Peer Review (May 2026): 8 years of ScholarOne data.

It has been tested

One journal already pays its reviewers. Decisions came 85% faster, and quality held.

Biology Open's Fast & Fair programme pays freelance reviewers £220 per manuscript. Over 18 months its paid reviews were faster than conventional ones, and the reviewers were neither softer nor harsher.

85%

less time to a first decision.

31%

of papers were rejected after paid review, against 32% after conventional review. Paying made reviews faster, not softer.

261

papers, July 2024 to December 2025: 170 with paid reviewers and 91 with conventional ones.

Nature 655:290 (1 July 2026); Gorelick and Clark, bioRxiv 10.1101/2025.03.18.644032. Critical Care Medicine (2025) found the same with a USD 250 honorarium. Perito Grid is not affiliated with Biology Open.

What we do

A marketplace for peer review, in one place.

Journals post a manuscript and invite vetted experts, matched on their published work, or their own trusted reviewers. Reviewers are paid for every review, straight to their own bank account.

1. The journal postsThe editor uploads the manuscript and says how many reviewers it needs and how many days they get.
2. Experts are matchedReviewers are suggested on the work on their ORCID record. The editor chooses who to invite; we never assign anonymously.
3. A reviewer acceptsThe invitation shows the abstract, the fee and the deadline. Accepting opens the manuscript.
4. The review comes inOn the journal's own review form, with comments marked right on the PDF.
5. Paid and ratedThe fee goes to the reviewer's bank account through Stripe, and the editor rates the review.

• OJS integrationRun your journal on Open Journal Systems? Perito can be integrated with it, so reviews fit into the editorial workflow you already have.
• Open peer review, if you want itWe support the open peer review movement. It is opt-in: closed review stays the default, and journals that want open reviews can switch them on.

Get started

Start as a reviewer or as a journal.

Team

We built and sold a company together.

• Matthijs van de VijverCTO

  Co-founder and CTO of Hubby e-sim. Development lead of DGTL Health, the platform behind our previous exit. Builds the product.

• Philip Croon, MDCSO

  Cardiology resident at Amsterdam UMC, adjunct faculty at Yale's cardiovascular data science lab, on the editorial board of JACC. Founder of MediMaat and of DGTL Health.

DGTL Health B.V., which Philip and Matthijs helped build, was acquired by Linc AB in 2024.