Which incentives do you think would most improve reviewer participation?
Results
(37 Answers)
Expert Consensus on Reviewer Incentives
Monetary compensation emerged as the clear leading incentive, ranked first by 22 of 36 experts (61%). The second most popular incentive was reduced publication fees, which appeared in the top three rankings of 24 experts.
There was notable disagreement on the value of public recognition. While 8 experts ranked it as their top incentive, others placed it much lower, with one expert explicitly stating that "any form of public recognition does not mean really something important or honorable" given how common reviewing has become.
Priority consideration for reviewers' own submissions showed moderate support, appearing in the top three rankings of 14 experts. Several experts suggested additional incentives including:
- Full APC waivers (not just reductions)
- Conference speaking invitations
- Travel grants
- Small research grants
- Option to publish signed reviews alongside articles
One expert specifically noted that monetary incentives would "vary country to country" but would "enhance quality of peer review," while another pointed out that current compensation models at some journals are inadequate compared to their publication fees.
Answer Explanations
- Ranking: 1 Monetary compensationuser-958242Vary country to country and time spent on peer review .Monetary compensation will be motivating and enhance quality of peer review.
- Ranking: 1 Monetary compensation 2 Reduced publication fees 3 Priority consideration for their own submissions 4 Other: Please explainuser-9835374. Option for publishing signed review alongside the reviewed article
- Ranking: 1 Monetary compensation 2 Priority consideration for their own submissions 3 Other: Please explain 4 Public recognition (certificates, acknowledgments)user-676638Other:
1. Full (and NOT partial) APC waiver for their own manuscripts
2. Speaker invitation in conferences organized by the publisher
3. Travel grant for conferences
4. Small research grants - Ranking: 1 Reduced publication feesuser-858214Only this one from my opinion stimulates reviewing for gold open access journals
- Ranking: 1 Access to premium journal content 2 Reduced publication fees 3 Priority consideration for their own submissions 4 Monetary compensation 5 Professional development opportunities 6 Continuing education credits 7 Public recognition (certificates, acknowledgments) 8 None needed - current system works welluser-4414457. Practically every researcher is doing reviewing now with so many journals around, so any form of public recognition does not mean really something important or honorable. 6 and 5. If Editor is capable to provide a manuscript closely related to your area it could be useful, but it does not happen too often. and can improve your education credit and professional development. 2, 3 and 4. Open access journal are greedy with tough time schedule demands. Compensation could be more significant. For example, MDPI/Molecules asks to do review in one week, but size of publication fee is 2700 CHF, while reviewer receive only 50 or 100 virtual CHF, which must be used during a limited time. So, technically reviewer should review about 30-35 papers to get one published in this journal. Certainly, this is not fare. Priority consideration for own submissions could be improved and publication fee has to be reduced. 1. The most reasonable reward is access to premium journal content as not many institutes worldwide have such an opportunity.
- Ranking: 1 Priority consideration for their own submissions 2 Monetary compensation 3 Access to premium journal content 4 Professional development opportunities 5 Reduced publication feesuser-916060Authors feel that some journals make a lot of money from authors and they wonder why not give a fraction of the APC to reviewers.
- Ranking: 1 Priority consideration for their own submissionsuser-974985I believe that those who are critical and conscientious of the work of their colleagues are equally critical of their own work, so they will submit high-quality publications.
- Ranking: 1 Public recognition (certificates, acknowledgments) 2 Monetary compensation 3 Professional development opportunitiesuser-709065NOT APPLICABLE
user-356918
10/07/2025 03:20