ArticleBMJ open2026
Exploring views on remuneration for review: a survey of patient and public reviewers for
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring views on remuneration for review: a survey of patient and public reviewers forBMJ open · 2026Article
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
objectivesCalls to compensate patient partners for contributions to the health sector are increasing. DESIGN/
settingTwo cross-sectional surveys administered via SurveyMonkey to P&P reviewers for
participantsTo capture views from those familiar with reviewing for
resultsSurvey 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.
conclusions
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.