Exploring views on remuneration for review: a survey of patient and public reviewers for The BMJ.

Authors

Sara Schroter, Rebecca Harmston, Emma Doble, Sophie Cook, Amy Price

Published in

BMJ open. Volume 16. Issue 8. Pages e110983. Aug 13, 2026. Epub Aug 13, 2026.

Abstract

Calls to compensate patient partners for contributions to the health sector are increasing. The BMJ invites patients and the public (P&P) to review manuscripts alongside academic reviewers and recently introduced remuneration. We surveyed P&P reviewers to capture perspectives on remuneration and overall reviewing experience.
Two cross-sectional surveys administered via SurveyMonkey to P&P reviewers for The BMJ journal.
To capture views from those familiar with reviewing for The BMJ and views from those less familiar, we conducted two surveys. Survey 1 was sent to 267 reviewers who had completed a review in the past 3 years. Survey 2 was sent to 493 reviewers who had been invited to review but not completed a review within the past 3 years.
Survey 1 received 183/267 (69%) responses; survey 2 received 100/493 (20%) responses. Most respondents were based in the UK or the USA. Overall, 71% (202/283) rated their review experience as 'very good' or 'good'. Half (51%, 143/283) said a £50 payment would make them more likely to review (48% survey 1, 56% survey 2). One-third (32%, 91/283) said a subscription to a selection of BMJ journals would make them more likely to review (32% survey 1, 33% survey 2). However, 29% (82/283) said £50 would not influence them (33% survey 1, 22% survey 2) and 40% (114/283) said the same about a subscription (39% survey 1, 43% survey 2). Views on remuneration varied-some saw it as recognition of value, others viewed it as unnecessary and some felt it was inadequate compensation. While 59% (166/283) had no concerns about introducing payment, 18% (52) had concerns, and 17% (49) were unsure. Concerns included potentially changing reviewers' motivations and the quality of reviews, administrative burden and tax implications, impact on income received from benefits and a need to evaluate the initiative. Respondents emphasised the importance of offering optional incentives to accommodate individual preferences.
The BMJ's P&P reviewers hold diverse views on remuneration. Flexible, optional incentives may help support broader engagement while respecting individual needs and values.

PMID:
42595359
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 14 Aug 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.