Since February 2006, we have been surveying reviewers from a number of journals across a range of subject areas, trying to answer that very question. The objective of our Reviewer Feedback Programme* is to assess how satisfied reviewers are with the experience of reviewing. Below are some of the key findings, which I hope will provide some more insights in to reviewer motivation.

The findings from our Reviewer Feedback Programme suggest that reviewers want:

1. feedback
2. recognition
3. more info on reviewer policy
4. relevant manuscripts

• 87% would like to see other reviewers’ comments**
• 90% of reviewers would like to be able to see the final decision**

“It would be useful to know the final decision and be able to see the other reviewer's comments... This would give me confidence that there was agreement or allow me to understand why a difference of views was expressed - and so improve my ability to review.” (Aged 46 to 55 from United Kingdom)

“It would be nice to know what happened to the article: Was the decision taken to publish it? What feedback did you get regarding my comments to the author? I would have liked to receive a copy of other reviewers’ comments... It feels like we send information that gets lost in a black hole!” (Aged 46 to 55 from United Arab Emirates)

2. Reviewers want recognition

Reviewers are grateful for efforts, however small, to show appreciation of their work**

“… I feel reviewers should receive some form of recognition for their time commitment. Perhaps a listing of all reviewers used in each issue …” (Aged 36 to 45 from Canada)

“I would like to know if you publish an annual list of the reviewers. It would be very good for people working at universities to have the opportunity to demonstrate that we are reviewers of a journal.” (Aged 46 to 55 from Spain)

What can we do to help address reviewers’ need for recognition?

• Annual listing of reviewers in the journal
• Certificates - click here for an example

3. Reviewers want more info on reviewer policy

Reviewers would benefit from having more information and guidance from the outset of the review process, including timely and useful reminders**

“As far as I know there is no guidance offered as to what is expected of the reviewers except to get the review done by a certain date.” (Aged over 65 from Canada)

“More specific guidelines for how long the review should be, if there are particular aspects of the article I should focus on most…” (Aged 26 to 35 from United States)

“I would have preferred the reminders to come before the deadline had passed ...” (Aged 26 to 35 from United States)

“Sending a reminder letter before the deadline of the review process will be helpful to keep the deadline.” (Aged 26 to 35 from Japan)

What can we do to help address reviewers’ need for more information on reviewer policy?

• Establish a peer review policy outlining what is expected of reviewers which can be published in the journal and on the journal’s homepage, and could be linked to from the reviewers invitation letter. Click here to see a template review policy, which we can use as a starting point.
• More info in reviewer invitation
  Findings suggest that reviewers are sometimes unaware of the deadline to return their reviewer report, including the deadlines in the reviewer invitation letter would help address this.
• Set up automatic reminders for reviewers and customising reviewer letters to include deadlines, what is expected of them and where they can turn to for help e.g. Scopus

4. Reviewers want relevant manuscripts

Reviewers are under considerable time pressure and would prefer not to receive manuscripts that are of such poor quality that they could be rejected outright**

Sample comments:

“I think that nowadays our reviewing overload (I usually have at least one manuscript on my desk continuously to review) should be reduced by a first screening of the submitted manuscripts.” (Aged 36 to 45 from Italy)

“Bolster a triage system to remove papers that have no chance of being accepted.” (Aged 36 to 45 from United States)

What can we do to help address reviewers’ need for relevant manuscripts?

• Technical Screening - we have instituted a new programme whereby all submitted manuscripts will be initially screened, purely on the basis of technical standards – adherence to the Guide for Authors and sufficient English language quality, to evaluate whether they are suitable for passing through into the formal peer review process. For more info: technical screening page

*The Reviewer Feedback Programme is an online survey, similar to our established Author and Editor Feedback Programmes, which includes questions covering topics such as: reviewers’ overall satisfaction, their willingness to review again for the journal, the influence of the perceived reputation of the journal, interaction between both the journal editor and publisher and the quality and relevance of the article. Reviewers are also asked to make comparisons with non-Elsevier published journals.

The aim of this programme is to get an understanding of reviewers’ wishes, their opinions of our online peer review system, EES, and their view of the overall peer review process. The feedback we receive is used to develop EES and other reviewer offerings, as well as to provide an insight into reviewer motivations.

**Findings are based on the June 2006 round of the Reviewer's Feedback Programme, drawn from 5,030 responses, where the error margin was ±1.2% at 95% confidence levels. The results were representative with reviewers drawn from all the major science disciplines.