There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
Peer reviewers are usually unpaid and their efforts not formally acknowledged. Some
journals have difficulty finding appropriate reviewers able to complete timely reviews,
resulting in publication delay.
A survey of peer reviewers from five biomedical journals was conducted to determine
why reviewers decline to review and their opinions on reviewer incentives. Items were
scored on 5-point Likert scales, with low scores indicating low importance or low
agreement.
551/890 (62%) reviewers responded. Factors rated most highly in importance for the
decision to accept to review a paper included contribution of the paper to subject
area (mean 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 86)), relevance of topic to own work (mean
3.46 (SD 0.99)) and opportunity to learn something new (mean 3.41 (SD 0.96)). The
most highly rated factor important in the decision to decline to review was conflict
with other workload (mean 4.06 (SD 1.31)). Most respondents agreed that financial
incentives would not be effective when time constraints are prohibitive (mean 3.59
(SD 1.01)). However, reviewers agreed that non-financial incentives might encourage
reviewers to accept requests to review: free subscription to journal content (mean
3.72 (SD 1.04)), annual acknowledgement on the journal's website (mean 3.64 (SD 0.90)),
more feedback about the outcome of the submission (mean 3.62 (SD 0.88)) and quality
of the review (mean 3.60 (SD 0.89), and appointment of reviewers to the journal's
editorial board (mean 3.57 (SD 0.99)).
Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to
their area of interest. Lack of time is the principal factor in the decision to decline.
Reviewing should be formally recognised by academic institutions and journals should
acknowledge reviewers' work.