“... Since all manuscripts need to be reviewed, the requests for referee reports become increasingly frequent. It becomes impossible to serve all these requests as the scientists also need to do research and teaching and fulfill other duties, depending on their employment at a university, non‐university institutions, or in industry ...” Read more in the Editorial by François Diederich.

This Editorial is the last one during my 10‐year term as Chairman of the Editorial Board (Kuratorium) of Angewandte Chemie, of which I have been a member for 19 years. I dealt intensively with the journal, which is also reflected in my Review 125 Years of Chemistry in the Mirror of “Angewandte” (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.­ 2013, 52, 2–31) on the occasion of its 125th anniversary. In the article, I mention that one of the most important milestones for the journal was undoubtedly the introduction of a rigorous peer‐review system in the early 1980s; it was the first change implemented by Peter Gölitz, who has shaped the journal as Editor‐in‐Chief since 1982. This move strengthened the confidence of the researchers, especially abroad, in the journal, so they increasingly submit their best work. Peer review is now part of the everyday life of scientists. But is the system sustainable and durable at a time when research takes place on an unprecedented scale?

Challenges for a Sustainable Peer‐Review System At the beginning of an independent scientific career, it is seen as an honor—often documented in curriculum vitae—to be invited to review for the top journals, such as JACS or Angewandte. With the progression of their career, especially the scientists who provide competent, fair, and differential assessments, are increasingly invited to review by the journal editors—the burden is growing. The numbers are in fact impressive as illustrated here for Angewandte Chemie. In 2012, its editors asked slightly more than 5000 scientists to provide 28 800 referee reports for the journal and received 17 100 (60 % yield). A total of 228 reviewers wrote at least one report per month, and 43 even evaluated more than twenty or more manuscripts in that year, while 2036 provided one review only. I would like to use this occasion to express a big “thank you” to all those who refereed manuscripts for the journal. The number of publications has grown steadily over the decades, and the rapid rise of China in the past two decades has further accelerated this development. Since all manuscripts need to be reviewed, the requests for referee reports become increasingly frequent. It becomes impossible to serve all these requests as the scientists also need to do research and teaching and fulfill other duties, depending on their employment at a university, non‐university institutions, or in industry. Of course, journals such as Angewandte Chemie continue to have a good yield of returned referee reports. Although negative responses to reviewing requests are a problem, another is the declining quality of the individual reports; rather than dealing intensively with an article and the results presented therein, many manuscripts are only read “diagonally” and the background information is often not considered at all. It frequently happens that reviewers require additional information that is already available in detail in the Supporting Information, even when clearly referred to in the main manuscript. The problem of overloading the reviewers is reinforced by the fact that quality referee reports are not only essential for the increasing number of manuscript submissions but also for other areas of the science system, such as in the assessment of research grant applications. Today, one is downright bombarded by reviewing requests for research proposals from funding agencies and scientific organizations from all over the world. This includes not only the assessment of proposals of individuals or small groups of researchers, but increasingly also the extremely elaborate assessment of large‐scale collective applications, such as those within the framework of the Excellence Initiative in Germany. Informed peer‐review‐based rankings and ratings, such as the pilot study “Chemistry Research Rating” of the Science Council of Germany or the “Research Excellence Framework” program in the United Kingdom put not only a large burden on those that are evaluated but also on the reviewers and review panels. Universities and non‐university institutions are evaluated at ever‐shorter intervals. Scientific advisory boards advise major research units, such as the Clusters of Excellence established in Germany and elsewhere, and help to assure and secure their quality. Especially important but also highly time‐consuming are the duties of experts in appointment and tenure processes. For each of these reviewing processes—and this is a very incomplete list—there are good reasons and value is certainly created. Also the reviewers are undoubtedly enriched, since they have to deal intensively with scientific work and findings—certainly an important and necessary addition to the increased browsing of journal web sites. But all these peer‐review processes are in direct competition with each other in terms of the time demand on the evaluators. Around 2005, the ETH Zurich used several annual reports to poll the professors on the number of generated referee reports, probably to get an idea of how much work is done that does not directly benefit the home institution. For 2006, I had issued 422 reports. This huge number surprised me greatly at that time, and since then I have reduced the number of reviewing requests that I accept to about half of this number.