IOPP report shows peer reviewers want feedback

IOP Publishing (IOPP) says the survey, which generated responses from over 3,000 peer reviewers across the globe, found that receiving an update on the final decision of the paper ranked first on a scale of one to five, followed by comments on the quality of the review undertaken and gaining access to other reviewers’ comments.

Nearly 65% of respondents indicated that cash or in-kind benefits are the least important motivators for reviewing.

In 2023, IOPP says it became the first publisher to offer reviewer feedback direct from the IOPP editorial team. When a reviewer opts-in for feedback on their report, IOPP shares a numerical evaluation with constructive information about the structure and usefulness of their peer review report. Over 60% of reviewers have opted-in to receiving feedback since the programme was launched.

IOPP says its ‘State of Peer Review 2024’ study tracks the changes made since 2020 when the previous survey was carried out. When comparing the survey responses from 2020 with 2024, the most noticeable change was that 60% more reviewers chose "Better and more accessible peer review training" as their most preferred initiative, with all other responses remaining broadly similar.

Following the 2020 survey, IOPP says it sought to address the gap in peer review training and lack of feedback by launching the Peer Review Excellence programme, one of the only free training programmes dedicated to the physical sciences. Since 2021 IOPP says over 6,000 people have signed up to the course and over 13,000 have received IOP trusted reviewer status.

Laura Feetham-Walker, reviewer engagement manager at IOPP says: "The work peer reviewers do is crucial to the advancement of science. Our 'State of peer review 2024’ survey gives us the opportunity to listen to those reviewers and learn how we can make their experience of reviewing for us better. Addressing reviewers’ feedback not only helps us to improve transparency within the peer review system but also aides the development of researchers' peer review skills.”