Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Apr;30(4):360-4.
doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360. Epub 2015 Mar 19.

Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication

Armen Yuri Gasparyan  1 , Alexey N Gerasimov  2 , Alexander A Voronov  3 , George D Kitas  4
Affiliations
Review

Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication

Armen Yuri Gasparyan et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Apr.

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.

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

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Comment in

References

    1. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:178–182. - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Biomedical journal editing: elements of success. Croat Med J. 2011;52:423–428. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J. 2012;53:386–389. - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. - PMC - PubMed