Recognition for review: rewarding contribution

Many reviewers feel that some form of public acknowledgment is more valuable than monetary payment when it comes to their services. In this podcast, Elizabeth Moylan discusses how publishers can recognize and reward the work that peer reviewers do.

(Guest post by Francesca Martin, cross-posted from the BioMed Central blog.)

There are many benefits to being a peer reviewer, some researchers feel that peer review has helped improve the quality of their work by informing them of flaws and helping them correct problems. Overall, it seems that most just want to contribute something back to science, noting that peer review is simply part of their role as a researcher.

The question is, what can publishers do to recognize the work that people do? This doesn’t just mean that those who review the most must be commended the highest.

The words ‘quality over quantity’ ring true and publishers understand that researchers cannot spend the bulk of their time reviewing other papers. Learning how to measure the quality of peer review is an issue publishers hope to address, thus, making the process of peer review a more efficient process.

Elizabeth Moylan, Senior Editor for Research Integrity, talks about the peer review process here:

View the latest posts on the SpringerOpen blog homepage