Which incentives do you think would most improve reviewer participation?

Answer Explanations

• Ranking: 1 Monetary compensation

  user-958242
  Vary country to country and time spent on peer review .Monetary compensation will be motivating and enhance quality of peer review.
• Ranking: 1 Monetary compensation 2 Reduced publication fees 3 Priority consideration for their own submissions 4 Other: Please explain

  user-983537
  4. Option for publishing signed review alongside the reviewed article 
• Ranking: 1 Monetary compensation 2 Priority consideration for their own submissions 3 Other: Please explain 4 Public recognition (certificates, acknowledgments)

  user-676638
  Other: 
  1. Full (and NOT partial) APC waiver for their own manuscripts
  2. Speaker invitation in conferences organized by the publisher
  3. Travel grant for conferences
  4. Small research grants 
• Ranking: 1 Reduced publication fees

  user-858214
  Only this one from my opinion stimulates reviewing for gold open access journals
• Ranking: 1 Access to premium journal content 2 Reduced publication fees 3 Priority consideration for their own submissions 4 Monetary compensation 5 Professional development opportunities 6 Continuing education credits 7 Public recognition (certificates, acknowledgments) 8 None needed - current system works well

  user-441445
  7. Practically every researcher is doing reviewing now with so many journals around, so any form of public recognition does not mean really something important or honorable. 6 and 5. If Editor is capable to provide a manuscript closely related to your area it could be useful, but it does not happen too often. and can improve your education credit and professional development. 2, 3 and 4. Open access journal are greedy with tough time schedule demands. Compensation could be more significant. For example, MDPI/Molecules asks to do review in one week, but size of publication fee is 2700 CHF, while reviewer receive only 50 or 100 virtual CHF, which must be used during a limited time. So, technically reviewer should review about 30-35 papers to get one published in this journal. Certainly, this is not fare. Priority consideration for own submissions could be improved and publication fee has to be reduced. 1. The most reasonable reward is access to premium journal content as not many institutes worldwide have such an opportunity.
• Ranking: 1 Priority consideration for their own submissions 2 Monetary compensation 3 Access to premium journal content 4 Professional development opportunities 5 Reduced publication fees

  user-916060
  Authors feel that some journals make a lot of money from authors and they wonder why not give a fraction of the APC to reviewers.
• Ranking: 1 Priority consideration for their own submissions

  user-974985
  I believe that those who are critical and conscientious of the work of their colleagues are equally critical of their own work, so they will submit high-quality publications.
• Ranking: 1 Public recognition (certificates, acknowledgments) 2 Monetary compensation 3 Professional development opportunities

  user-709065
  NOT APPLICABLE