Horace Freeland Judson, a historian of science, has argued that the peer-review system is breaking down. He estimates that every year the NIH—which distributes tens of billions of dollars for basic research—asks unpaid scientists to review 40,000 applications. In total, these scientists might spend 120,000 workweeks per year—or more than 2,000 years total—on review panels. The work load may be unsustainable. Science journals have also proliferated to an extent that is taxing the capacity of reviewers—and leaving few papers unpublished. A study that fails review at one journal can be submitted elsewhere, over and over again, until it finds a home.