{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,13]],"date-time":"2026-08-13T11:37:15Z","timestamp":1786621035059,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":27,"publisher":"BMJ","issue":"8","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,13]],"date-time":"2026-08-13T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1786579200000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":12,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["bmj.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["BMJ Open"],"accepted":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,10]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,8]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Objectives<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Calls to compensate patient partners for contributions to the health sector are increasing.\n                      <jats:italic>The BMJ<\/jats:italic>\n                      invites patients and the public (P&amp;P) to review manuscripts alongside academic reviewers and recently introduced remuneration. We surveyed P&amp;P reviewers to capture perspectives on remuneration and overall reviewing experience.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Design\/setting<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Two cross-sectional surveys administered via SurveyMonkey to P&amp;P reviewers for\n                      <jats:italic>The BMJ<\/jats:italic>\n                      journal.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Participants<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      To capture views from those familiar with reviewing for\n                      <jats:italic>The BMJ<\/jats:italic>\n                      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.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>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 \u2018very good\u2019 or \u2018good\u2019. Half (51%, 143\/283) said a \u00a350 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 \u00a350 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\u2014some 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\u2019 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.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      <jats:italic>The BMJ<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2019s P&amp;P reviewers hold diverse views on remuneration. Flexible, optional incentives may help support broader engagement while respecting individual needs and values.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2025-110983","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,13]],"date-time":"2026-08-13T11:10:18Z","timestamp":1786619418000},"page":"e110983","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/crossmarkpolicy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Exploring views on remuneration for review: a survey of patient and public reviewers for\n                    <i>The BMJ<\/i>"],"prefix":"10.1136","volume":"16","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-8791-8564","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Sara","family":"Schroter","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Senior Researcher, BMJ, London, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Rebecca","family":"Harmston","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"BMJ Patient and Public Reviewer (patient author), London, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Emma","family":"Doble","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Patient and public strategy editor (patient author), BMJ, London, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Sophie","family":"Cook","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Head of clinical content, BMJ, London, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Amy","family":"Price","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Senior Investigator; Senior Researcher, (patient author) Dartmouth Health NH, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado, USA"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"239","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,13]]},"reference":[{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.1","unstructured":"Publons . Global state of peer review report. 2018. Available: https:\/\/publons.com\/community\/gspr"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1177\/21501319241252235","article-title":"Peer Review and Medical Journals","volume":"15","author":"Nugent","year":"2024","journal-title":"J Prim Care Community Health"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e1314","DOI":"10.1097\/CCM.0000000000006642","article-title":"The Challenges and Future of Peer Review","volume":"53","author":"Bauchner","year":"2025","journal-title":"Crit Care Med"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Cheah PY , Piasecki J . Should peer reviewers be paid to review academic papers? Lancet 2022;399. doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(21)02804-X","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(21)02804-X"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jacc.2023.08.056"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Moustafa K . No to paid peer review. Lancet 2022;400. doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(22)01057-1","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(22)01057-1"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"439","DOI":"10.12688\/f1000research.148985.4","article-title":"Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process","volume":"13","author":"L. Seghier","year":"2025","journal-title":"F1000Res"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"287","DOI":"10.1016\/j.respol.2012.04.014","article-title":"Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study","volume":"42","author":"Squazzoni","year":"2013","journal-title":"Res Policy"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.9","first-page":"46","article-title":"Towards peer review as a group engagement","volume":"14","author":"Bonaccorsi","year":"2022","journal-title":"JLISIt"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.3897\/ese.2020.e51839","article-title":"Time to stop the exploitation of free academic labour","volume":"46","author":"Tennant","year":"2020","journal-title":"ESE"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. 2017. Available: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.24318\/cope.2019.1.9","DOI":"10.24318\/cope.2019.1.9"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/jech.2006.049817"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e1181","DOI":"10.1097\/CCM.0000000000006637","article-title":"Effect of Monetary Incentives on Peer Review Acceptance and Completion: A Quasi-Randomized Interventional Trial","volume":"53","author":"Cotton","year":"2025","journal-title":"Crit Care Med"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Gorelick DA , Clark A . Fast & fair peer review: a pilot study demonstrating feasibility of rapid, high-quality peer review in a biology journal. Scientific Communication and Education [Preprint] 2025. doi:10.1101\/2025.03.18.644032","DOI":"10.1101\/2025.03.18.644032"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.g3726","article-title":"The BMJ\u2019s own patient journey","volume":"348","author":"Richards","year":"2014","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.h4396","article-title":"Logging The BMJ\u2019s \u201cpatient journey\u201d","volume":"351","author":"Richards","year":"2015","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.k3798","article-title":"Better together: patient partnership in medical journals","volume":"362","author":"Richards","year":"2018","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.318.7175.4"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.g5394","article-title":"Prepublication histories and open peer review at the BMJ","volume":"349","author":"Groves","year":"2014","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.20","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2018-023357","article-title":"Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals","volume":"8","author":"Schroter","year":"2018","journal-title":"BMJ Open"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.q2675","article-title":"Remuneration of African patient partners is an important tool for health justice","volume":"387","author":"Asante","year":"2024","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.22","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.r381","article-title":"Patient partner research has a compensation crisis","volume":"388","author":"Price","year":"2025","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.23","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.q2581","article-title":"The BMJ will remunerate patient and public reviewers","volume":"387","author":"Doble","year":"2024","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.24","unstructured":"NIHR . Payment guidance for researchers and professionals. Available: https:\/\/www.nihr.ac.uk\/documents\/payment-guidance-for-researchers-andprofessionals\/27392 [Accessed 10 Jul 2025]."},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.25","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"12","DOI":"10.1186\/s40900-022-00346-w","article-title":"Hidden in plain sight? Identifying patient-authored publications","volume":"8","author":"Oliver","year":"2022","journal-title":"Res Involv Engagem"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.26","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"41","DOI":"10.1002\/leap.1002","article-title":"Rewarding reviewers \u2013 sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained","volume":"29","author":"Warne","year":"2016","journal-title":"Learned Publishing"},{"key":"2026081304101089000_16.8.e110983.27","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Schroter S , Harmston R , Doble E , et al . Data from: exploring views on remuneration for review: a survey of patient and public reviewers for the BMJ. Open Science Framework (OSF) Repository, 2026. Available: https:\/\/osf.io\/uj3n8","DOI":"10.31222\/osf.io\/4tfvh_v1"}],"container-title":["BMJ Open"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/syndication.highwire.org\/content\/doi\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2025-110983","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,13]],"date-time":"2026-08-13T11:10:26Z","timestamp":1786619426000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/bmjopen.bmj.com\/lookup\/doi\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2025-110983"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,8]]},"references-count":27,"journal-issue":{"issue":"8","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,13]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,8]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1136\/bmjopen-2025-110983"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2025-110983","relation":{},"ISSN":["2044-6055","2044-6055"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2044-6055","type":"print"},{"value":"2044-6055","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,8]]}}}