Peer Review as a Virtue, or How to Engage a Reviewer

Abstract

The article briefly covers the main known models of arranging peer review of articles in scientific periodicals, based on the last few years’ publications. In this regard, the possible ways and means of encouraging and stimulating reviewers of scientific papers are described. Emphasis is placed on the importance, complexity, ambiguity, and volunteer nature of the work of a scientific journal reviewer. The possibilities of assisting a reviewer via specified instructions and questionnaires are described. It is shown that despite the bidding to pay for this work, non-material forms of motivation for reviewers remain the priority. They are based on providing the reviewer with the opportunity to confirm the fact of reviewing articles for the journal, preferably in the form of a record in a virtual profile. This allows verifying information about the fact of peer review without disclosing information about specific articles and review results. The results of an online survey of editorial departments of periodicals participating in the NAS Journals Support Programme also show that even non-material forms of encouraging and stimulating reviewers are not used sufficiently. For example, only one-third of 41 journals have introduced at least some measures to encourage reviewers, mainly letters of appreciation from the editorial board and reviewer certificates. Despite the general global trend, nine of the journals that send letters of appreciation from the editorial board to reviewers do not consider this a form of encouragement, as does one of the journals that provides reviewer certificates. At the same time, many scientists in Ukraine systematically perform the work of reviewers for domestic scientific journals, a significant number of which are included in the Web of Science and Scopus databases, without any apparent motivation. This is affirmed by the lists of reviewers submitted to the “Academperiodyka” Publishing House of the NAS of Ukraine in 2024 and 2025. The above justifies the need to intensify work with both publishing departments and potential reviewers. Also, it raises the question of considering a reviewer’s work when evaluating the effectiveness of his/her scientific work.