Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Issue 1 (20th January 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Warne, Verity
• Is Part Of: Learned publishing. Volume 29:Issue 1(2016)
• Page Start: 41
• Page End: 50
• Publication Date: 2016-01-20
• Subjects: Scholarly publishing -- Periodicals; 070.5
• DOI: 10.1002/leap.1002
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0953-1513

Abstract

Abstract: In July 2015, Wiley surveyed over 170, 000 researchers in order to explore peer reviewing experience; attitudes towards recognition and reward for reviewers; and training requirements. The survey received 2, 982 usable responses (a response rate of 1.7%). Respondents from all markets indicated similar levels of review activity. However, analysis of reviewer and corresponding author data suggests that US researchers in fact bear a disproportionate burden of review, while Chinese authors publish twice as much as they review. Results show that while reviewers choose to review in order to give back to the community, there is more perceived benefit in interacting with the community of a top‐ranking journal than a low‐ranking one. The majority of peer review training received by respondents has come either in the form of journal guidelines or informally as advice from supervisors or colleagues. Seventy‐seven per cent show an interest in receiving further reviewer training. Reviewers strongly believe that reviewing is inadequately acknowledged at present and should carry more weight in their institutions' evaluation process. Respondents value recognition initiatives related to receiving feedback from the journal over monetary rewards and payment in kind. Questions raised include how to evenly expand the reviewer pool, provide training throughout the researcher career arc, and deliver consistent evaluation and recognition for reviewers.