Exploring views on remuneration for review: A survey of patient and public reviewers

Le résumé fourni par la source

ObjectivesCalls to compensate patient partners for contributions to the health sector are increasing. The BMJ invites patients and the public (P&P) to review manuscripts alongside academic reviewers and recently introduced remuneration. We surveyed P&P reviewers to capture perspectives on remuneration and overall reviewing experience.Design/settingTwo cross-sectional surveys administered via SurveyMonkey. ParticipantsSurvey 1 targeted P&P reviewers who had completed a review in the past 3 years; Survey 2 included those invited to review but who had not completed a review within that period. ResultsSurvey 1 received 183/267 (69%) responses; Survey 2 received 100/493 (20%) responses. Most respondents were based in the UK or US. Overall, 71% (202/283) rated their review experience as “very good” or “good.” Half (51%, 143/283) said a £50 payment would make them more likely to review (48% Survey 1, 56% Survey 2). One-third (32%, 91/283) said a subscription to a selection of BMJ journals would make them more likely to review (32% Survey 1, 33% Survey 2). However, 29% (82/283) said £50 would not influence them (33% Survey 1, 22% Survey 2) and 40% (114/283) said the same about a subscription (39% Survey 1, 43% Survey 2). . Views on remuneration varied - some saw it as recognition of value, others viewed it as unnecessary, and some felt it was inadequate compensation. While 59% (166/283) had no concerns about introducing payment; 18% (52) had concerns, and 17% (49) were unsure. Concerns included potentially changing reviewers’ motivations and the quality of reviews, administrative burden and tax implications, impact on income received from benefits, and a need to evaluate the initiative. Respondents emphasised the importance of offering optional incentives to accommodate individual preferences.Conclusions The BMJ’s P&P reviewers hold diverse views on remuneration. Flexible, optional incentives may help support broader engagement while respecting individual needs and values.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.