ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
Motivations and barriers to engaging in peer review: a qualitative study.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeer review is a central mechanism of scientific communication. However, despite its critical role in safeguarding research quality and integrity, there is limited evidence on how reviewers themselves perceive the factors that motivate or hinder their engagement. This study explored reviewers' perceptions of the motivations and barriers shaping participation in peer review.
methodsA qualitative, exploratory-descriptive design was adopted. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between June and September 2025 with participants holding an academic title in health sciences who had completed at least one peer review for a scientific journal. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed inductively using thematic analysis following Braun et al.'s framework. Data collection and analysis proceeded iteratively until thematic saturation was reached.
resultsTwenty-seven academics from seven health science disciplines participated in the study. Participants were predominantly female (63%), with similar proportions holding doctoral (52%) and master's degrees (48%), and peer-review activity in the previous 12 months ranging from 1 to more than 10 reviews. Findings were organised into two domains, motivations and barriers, comprising ten themes. Motivations included contribution to science, scientific development, career development, personal satisfaction, and financial incentives. Barriers included high workload, lack of recognition and incentives, perceived competence, research integrity, and editorial shortcomings.
conclusionReviewer engagement appears to be a negotiated process in which academics weigh motivations against barriers when deciding whether to participate in peer review. These trade-offs shape decisions to accept or decline review invitations. Strengthening recognition, transparency, and editorial support may help sustain reviewer participation in the health sciences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.