Introduction: Peer review is vital to the scientific publishing process. However, the present system
has been criticized and accused of bias, lack of transparency, and failure to detect
significant breakthroughs. Peer reviewers usually work pro bono, and their efforts
are not formally acknowledged. Some journals have difficulty finding appropriate reviewers
who can complete timely reviews, resulting in significant publication delay. Materials and Methods: An online survey of a convenience sample of clinicians and biomedical scientists
from the Middle East (107) and Africa (69) was conducted to explore why reviewers
decline to review and to ascertain their opinions on reviewer incentives. Items were
scored on 5-point Likert scales, with low scores indicating low importance or low
agreement. Results: One hundred and seventy two respondents provided adequate responses for analysis.
Factors rated most highly in importance for the decision to accept to review a paper
included contribution of the paper to the subject area (69.8%), the relevance of the
topic to own work (66.0%), and desire to keep up to date with research (63.8%). The
most highly rated factor that was important in the decision to decline to review was
conflict with other workloads (69.4%), followed by low quality of submissions and
tight time scale (65.8% for both), and lack of interest (65.1%). Most respondents
agreed that financial incentives would not be effective when time constraints are
prohibitive. However, reviewers agreed that nonfinancial incentives might encourage
reviewers to accept requests to review: annual acknowledgment on the journal's website
(78.5%), more feedback about the outcome of the submission (74.3%) and quality of
the review (73.0%), appointment of reviewers to the journal's editorial board (69.1%),
and being offered free subscription to the journal content (68.7%). Conclusions: Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to
their area of interest. Lack of time is the principal factor in the decision to decline.
Reviewing should be formally recognized by academic institutions, and journals should
acknowledge reviewers' work.
Key-words:
Developing regions - medical journalism - peer review - research - scholarly publishing
