Peer Review Week’s 2024 theme of innovation and technology offers an opportunity to explore how the landscape of peer review rewards is evolving across the publishing industry to attract and retain talented reviewers, and to maintain the rigor of scientific discourse.
As we celebrate Peer Review Week 2024, we focus on recognising the invaluable contributions of peer reviewers - the unsung heroes who dedicate their time and expertise to uphold the integrity, accuracy, and quality of scholarly communication. Acknowledging the efforts of peer reviewers is central to sustaining the peer review system, especially as the demand for qualified reviewers grows with the increasing volume of scientific publications.
Publisher specific reward schemes
Different publishers are pioneering various reward programs to acknowledge and incentivise reviewers. These range from financial incentives and recognition programs, to professional development opportunities.
Innovative approaches and trends at IOP Publishing
Laura Feetham-Walker, Reviewer Engagement Manager at IOP Publishing:
“Peer reviewers have been the guardians of the scientific record for centuries. To future-proof peer review, we must innovate and ensure reviewers are recognised and rewarded for their contributions. Our ‘Peer Review Excellence: training and certification programme’ offers a free online training course, tailored for the physical sciences and is geared towards early career researchers. It also gives our expert reviewers the recognition they deserve with IOP Trusted Reviewer status.
We have introduced other novel ways to make the review process more transparent and inclusive through initiatives such as co-review.
Under the co-review model, reviewers can formally invite a colleague to collaborate on a review, ensuring that both contributors receive proper recognition for their efforts via the Web of Science reviewer recognition service."
Dr. L. P. McDonnell, Research Associate at University of Cambridge and reviewer with IOP Publishing says:
“Co-review has the potential to drastically increase the engagement of PhD students and early career researchers with the review process and receive recognition. This lets students gain insight into the review and publishing process before submitting their own research. In my own experience it was not until I published my own papers that I was invited to participate as a reviewer. Gaining this experience earlier would no doubt have strengthened my publications and given me a good appreciation for the timescales and publication process. The exposure of working as a reviewer is also beneficial in providing a broader perspective of the wider scientific field and reminds us, we are not working in isolation, no matter how dark or lonely the lab may be.
We’ve seen some great improvements as a result of these innovations. One notable example is the implementation of double anonymous peer review - where the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential - across our all our own journals. Over the past 12 months, our statistics have revealed that female and non-binary authors are 11% more likely than their male counterparts to have their manuscripts accepted when they choose double anonymous peer review. Additionally, authors from outside Western Europe see an increased likelihood of their work being accepted when their identities are concealed.”
PeerJ values peer review—and peer reviewers!
Nathaniel Gore, Director of Communities, PeerJ:
“At PeerJ, we have always recognised the critical role that peer reviewers play in the scientific process, and we believe their contributions should be acknowledged and rewarded. As a result, we have implemented several initiatives to ensure that peer review is valued, fair, and more transparent.
Since our launch we have awarded Contribution Points to our users, which acknowledge the value of reviewing articles, acting as Academic Editor, and opting in to published peer review. These points highlight the importance of each contributor's work in making science more open and accessible. When hitting specific milestones contributors receive profile badges—Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum—to visibly acknowledge their considerable efforts; we know these badges are highly valued by our users, and the certificates and badges they receive feature on personal websites and on CVs.
In 2022, we took this commitment further by launching the PeerJ Token program. This innovative initiative allows peer reviewers and academic editors to earn tokens for their contributions, which can be exchanged for discounts on our Article Processing Charges. By offering tokens that don't expire and can be pooled with co-authors, we are not only recognizing the value of peer review but also making it more accessible for everyone involved in who contributes to that process to publish OA. Since we launched the program over 7000 researchers have signed up as reviewers, and we’ve strong evidence to show these contributors are highly engaged: the number of users volunteering to review specific submissions has doubled, and signed-up reviewers are more than twice as likely as non-signed up reviewers to have accepted 3 or more reviews after joining the program.
We remain committed to continuously improving our recognition and reward systems to ensure that the invaluable contributions of our reviewers are both acknowledged and incentivised.”
Royal Society Publishing's commitment to peer reviewers
At Royal Society Publishing, we understand that the future of scientific publishing hinges on the dedication of our peer reviewers. To recognise contributions, we have implemented several initiatives:
- Our Reviewer Reward scheme provides reviewers with discounts on publication fees for our journals to support their own research dissemination.
- Recognition through the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service – a free service records, verifies, and showcases peer review contributions, which can be used in promotion and grant applications.
- Journal Recognition – our journals publish an annual citable article containing the list of reviewers who have opted to receive this recognition.
- Co-reviewing – we encourage opportunities for the senior reviewer to give recognition to their co-reviewer through the Reviewer Recognition Service and by adding their name to the published peer review reports.
- Option to sign published reports - four of our journals offer transparency by publishing peer review information (reviewer reports, decision letter and response) alongside published articles.
By offering these incentives, we aim to foster a more engaged and appreciated community of peer reviewers.
Biology Letters reviewer, Babak Momeni, Boston College:
"The reviewer token award help me, even if only modestly, by reducing the burden of publication fee for independent research. Discounts on publication fees would be a nice way to balance rewarding the reviewers without turning that into a personal financial incentive. I think reducing the restrictions on the terms of the discount would be helpful (e.g. discount applicable to a group of journals rather than a single journal, no time-expiration, etc.). The timing and scope of new manuscripts coming out of a lab is not fully controllable, and it would be nice if the researchers are not forced into decisions related to when and where to publish. Some of the research activity in our lab is also not funded by sponsors (including the work we published on SARS-CoV-2), and the burden of publication fees in those cases is even heavier."
Success stories: the impact of recognition
The initiatives by IOP Publishing, PeerJ and here at Royal Society Publishing demonstrate the positive impact that recognition and rewards can have on the peer review process. Reviewers feel more valued and are more likely to engage deeply with the manuscripts they assess. This not only improves the quality of reviews but also contributes to the professional growth of reviewers, especially early-career researchers.
Future trends and calls to action
The peer review process has remained broadly the same for hundreds of years. As the landscape of scientific research changes, our peer review systems must change as well. The best way to innovate successfully is to engage with the research community and listen carefully to their wants and needs.
Moving forward, there is a collective responsibility to continue enhancing the peer review process. Publishers, institutions, and the scientific community at large should collaborate to develop new reward systems, implement innovative review models, and ensure that peer review remains a cornerstone of scientific integrity.
Join the conversation
We ask our readers how can we further improve the peer review process? What rewards and recognition would you like to see implemented? Together, we can shape the future of peer review to be more rewarding, inclusive, and effective for all.
Interested in finding out more about reviewing for us? Visit our website.
