Journal of Postgraduate Medicine Medknow Publications and Staff Society of Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India ISSN: 0022-3859 EISSN: 0972-2823 Vol. 52, Num. 4, 2006, pp. 325-325

Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, Vol. 52, No. 4, October-December, 2006, pp. 325

Letter To Editor

Incentives to encourage peer review

Choi BCK

Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control, Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), Government of Canada, Ottawa; Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto; Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Correspondence Address:Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control, Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), Government of Canada, Ottawa; Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto; Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Email: bernard_choi@phac-aspc.gc.ca

Code Number: jp06110

Sir,

Usually, the peer reviewers are not paid for their time or efforts and their contribution is not formally acknowledged.[1],[2] Senior researchers often delegate the task of review to their graduate students. Alternatively, many busy researchers often decline to review manuscripts, write the reviews in haste or send in their comments late. All these have an adverse impact on the quality and efficiency of the peer review system and add little to the quality of submission to journals.[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]

Several types of incentives have been suggested to encourage reviewers: free access to journal, acknowledgment on journal website, feedback from editor,[7] appointment to editorial board, consultant fee, open peer review[1],[7],[8],[9] and published acknowledgement of reviewer′s contribution to the manuscript.[8]

These incentives, however, are not without limitations. For many researchers, their institutions already have subscriptions to journals, so free access may not mean much. Acknowledgment on journal website is only for the reviewers to cherish memories of their work during the year and adds very little to their promotion dossiers. Feedback from the editor means more reading; and appointment to an editorial board means more work for some. Consulting fee can be an incentive but journals are not prepared to pay ongoing rates. Publishing the reviewer′s name alongside the manuscript could, in fact, act as a deterrent for providing an honest opinion during the review process.[1],[8],[9] Signed reviews have been found to be more tamed in opinion and more likely to recommend publication, than anonymous reviews.[1] Junior reviewers, for example, would be particularly reluctant to openly criticize the work of senior researchers for fear of reprisal, especially if their livelihoods depend on winning grants.[8]

Reviewers, who are generally senior researchers, have several publications to their credit. They are very keen to publish their work and views for several reasons: the urge to publish, fame and recognition brought by publication, satisfaction for contribution to science, sense of creating a legacy for posterity and advancement of career.[10]
We have noted that lately, commentaries have been printed alongside certain articles published in the Journal of Postgraduate Medicine (JGPM) .[11],[12] The JGPM editors request reviewers, who have done a good job, to pen these commentaries to help "elucidate relevant points, bring out finer nuances of the topic and assist the readers by providing new perspectives". We think that inviting peer reviewers to publish a short commentary along with the manuscript is a novel incentive for reviewers. It could make reviewers compete for writing excellent reviews and reward them with an opportunity to publish. A short commentary is easier to read and a reader after reading the commentary could get interested in the original article. In addition, such commentaries could provide a different perspective from the reviewers.
Further research, possibly another survey[13] or a randomized controlled trial of peer reviewers,[3] would be needed to substantiate the effectiveness and feasibility of the solution proposed here.

References

Copyright 2006 - Journal of Postgraduate Medicine