Exploring views on remuneration for review: a survey of patient and public reviewers for The BMJ
Rattachement africain : gb, us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVES: 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/SETTING: journal. PARTICIPANTS: and views from those less familiar, we conducted two surveys. Survey 1 was sent to 267 reviewers who had completed a review in the past 3 years. Survey 2 was sent to 493 reviewers who had been invited to review but not completed a review within the past 3 years. RESULTS: Survey 1 received 183/267 (69%) responses; survey 2 received 100/493 (20%) responses. Most respondents were based in the UK or the USA. 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: '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.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé, mais le titre doit être comparé manuellement.
- Titre Crossref
- Exploring views on remuneration for review: a survey of patient and public reviewers for <i>The BMJ</i>
- Date Crossref
- 01/08/2026
- Éditeur
- BMJ
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
BMT Group (United Kingdom) pays non établi dans la noticeEntreprise
-
National Patient Safety Foundation pays non établi dans la noticeOrganisation à but non lucratif
-
The Patients Association pays non établi dans la noticeOrganisation à but non lucratif
-
UK Dementia Research Institute pays non établi dans la noticeStructure de recherche
-
Colorado School of Public Health (patient author) Dartmouth Health NH pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Senior Researcher pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
-
BMJ Patient and Public Reviewer (patient author) pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
-
Patient and public strategy editor (patient author) pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
-
Head of clinical content pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
BMT Group (United Kingdom), National Patient Safety Foundation et The Patients Association, avec 6 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.