An Empirical Study of Goal Intentions and Monetary Compensation for Reviewers in Information Science

Abstract

In this paper, we study manuscript reviewers in terms of their goal intentions, effort level, and monetary compensation. Building upon our previous paper, “How to motivate a reviewer with a present bias to work harder”, we explore further nuances in reviewer motivations and behaviors. With this aim, we surveyed corresponding authors who have published in four Information Science journals about their role as reviewers. Based on the survey responses (a sample size of 193 reviewers), we analyzed what their goal intentions are with respect to manuscript evaluation, and whether it is possible to better motivate them to choose higher evaluation goals. We also studied whether a reviewer with a present bias is more likely to choose a higher goal regarding the manuscript evaluation if they are sufficiently compensated. We found that “Quality control” is the most likely goal intention regarding the evaluation of a difficult manuscript, while “Networking opportunities” is the least likely one. We also found that in a competitive deadline scenario, at least a quarter of the respondents seemed to overvalue immediate rewards over future benefits and intentions. However, 42,5% of the survey respondents were more likely to accept higher evaluation goals if they received some monetary compensation. Furthermore, we found that reviewers with an overly strong present bias will need a monetary incentive to write a review report for a difficult manuscript in a competitive deadline scenario, with “Quality control” as their evaluation goal.