Is the tail wagging the dog? Understanding the value of incentives in peer review

Abstract

Incentives for efforts expended in peer review remain controversial, as one of us [https://www.morressier.com/o/event/655b8f316515150019d5f90b/sessions/6569ca7c8d0e640013427ec3?eventId=655b8f316515150019d5f90b] reported at the recent APE Meeting in Berlin 2024. Publishers and researchers have different views on if, and how, peer review should and could be rewarded. We surveyed researchers regularly performing peer review for journals as well as editors and journal managers who assign articles in order to look at the use of incentives and how these influence behavior. Incentives for peer review remain relatively rare overall: Results show that more than 80% of editorial board members said they ‘did not reward’ or ‘rewarded in less than 25% of cases’, while, at the same time, the same proportion of respondents felt that rewarding peer reviewers would be a good idea. The majority of our respondents felt that giving ‘something was better than nothing’ and that a token incentive would help. In terms of actual rewards, APC tokens are both wanted (52%) and awarded (42%) while certificates are given far more (43%) than they are actually wanted (12%). Surprisingly, money is given out far less (4%) than wanted (27%); this reward is not actually desired as much as one might expect.