J Korean Med Sci.  2015 Apr;30(4):360-364. 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360.

Rewarding Peer Reviewers: Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication

• Gasparyan
• Gerasimov
• Voronov AA
• Kitas GD

• KMID: 2164441
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360

Abstract

This article overviews currently available options for rewarding peer reviewers. Rewards and incentives may help maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Publishers around the world implemented a variety of financial and nonfinancial mechanisms for incentivizing their best reviewers. None of these is proved effective on its own. A strategy of combined rewards and credits for the reviewers1 creative contributions seems a workable solution. Opening access to reviews and assigning publication credits to the best reviews is one of the latest achievements of digitization. Reviews, posted on academic networking platforms, such as Publons, add to the transparency of the whole system of peer review. Reviewer credits, properly counted and displayed on individual digital profiles, help distinguish the best contributors, invite them to review and offer responsible editorial posts.

Keyword

Peer Review; Science Communication; Periodicals as Topic; Publication Ethics; Rewards; Open Access

MeSH Terms

*Communication
Fee-for-Service Plans
Humans
*Peer Review, Research
Periodicals as Topic
Publishing
*Reward
Science

Reference

1. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006; 99:178–182.

2. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; Mr000016.

3. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Biomedical journal editing: elements of success. Croat Med J. 2011; 52:423–428.

4. Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J. 2012; 53:386–389.

5. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Croat Med J. 2013; 54:600–608.

6. Smith R. Conflicts of interest: how money clouds objectivity. J R Soc Med. 2006; 99:292–297.

7. Barroga EF. Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining 'rational cheating' in peer review. J Korean Med Sci. 2014; 29:1450–1452.

8. Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I. Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature. 2014; 515:480–482.

9. Thombs BD, Levis AW, Razykov I, Syamchandra A, Leentjens AF, Levenson JL, Lumley MA. Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: a cross-sectional study. J Psychosom Res. 2015; 78:1–6.

10. Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, France CR. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Ann Behav Med. 2011; 42:1–13.

11. Gasparyan AY, Akazhanov NA, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Systematic and open identification of researchers and authors: focus on open researcher and contributor ID. J Korean Med Sci. 2014; 29:1453–1456.

12. Bastian H. A stronger post-publication culture is needed for better science. PLoS Med. 2014; 11:e1001772.

13. Brand RA. Reviewing for clinical orthopaedics and related research. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470:2622–2625.

14. Graur D. Peer review: Payback time for referee refusal. Nature. 2014; 505:483.

15. Newton M. More on peer review: quality control for a costly product. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2008; 15:439–442.

16. Gosling S. Elsevier reviewer badges and rewards scheme. 2015. accessed on 16 January 2015. Available at http://www.peerreviewfuture.com/?page_id=242.

17. Kramer MS. Researchers, authors and reviewers: what are our responsibilities? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012; 26:308–309.

18. Diamandis EP. Publishing costs: Peer review as a business transaction. Nature. 2015; 517:145.

19. Van Noorden R. Company offers portable peer review. Nature. 2013; 494:161.

20. Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007; 61:9–12.

21. Bernstein J. Free for service: the inadequate incentives for quality peer review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471:3093–3094. discussion 4-7.

22. Munk PL, Murphy KJ, Nicolaou S, Klass D. Why should I review journal manuscripts? Can Assoc Radiol J. 2014; 65:193.

23. Stahel PF, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. BMC Med. 2014; 12:179.

24. Sohail S. Fortifying the external peer review: an editorial perspective. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2015; 25:2–3.

25. Fuster V. A praise for reviewers: how do we reward them? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65:212–213.

26. De Gregory J. Medical journals start granting CME credit for peer review. Sci Editor. 2004; 27:190–191.

27. van Dijk U. Certificate of excellence in reviewing. 2013. accessed on 16 January 2015. Available at http: //www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/peer-review/certificate-of-peer-reviewing-excellence.

28. Clark RK. Peer review: a view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer. Br Dent J. 2012; 213:153–154.

29. Van Noorden R. The scientists who get credit for peer review. 2014. accessed on 16 January 2015. Available at http://www.nature.com/news/the-scientists-who-get-credit-for-peer-review-1.16102.

30. Chimes C. News roundup: publons data in altmetric details pages. 2013. accessed on 16 January 2015. Available at http://www.altmetric.com/blog/publons/.

31. Review rewards. Nature. 2014; 514:274.

32. Florian RV. Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings. Front Comput Neurosci. 2012; 6:31.

33. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. How long is the peer review process for journal manuscripts? A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Chimia (Aarau). 2010; 64:72–77.

34. Cobo E, Selva-O'Callagham A, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Dominguez R, Vilardell M. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS One. 2007; 2:e332.

35. Fokin AA. Reviewing a reviewer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009; 35:383–384.

36. Carrell DT, Rajpert-De Meyts E. Meaningful peer review is integral to quality science and should provide benefits to the authors and reviewers alike. Andrology. 2013; 1:531–532.