Combating reviewer fatigue with carrots

I am excited to share the January 2023 issue of BJUI Compass with our readers. This issue of the Journal includes three review articles, two research letters, one editorial and eight original articles across a range of topics in urology. This is the largest issue we have published to date, and it is a testament to the hard work of our authors, reviewers and editorial team.

An issue of this size is only possible because of the sustained increase in the number of article submissions we receive each month. At the time of writing this editorial (15 November 2022), the Journal is on track to receive 165 articles in 2022. This represents an increase of nearly 120% from 2020. This is an affirmation that the urologic community has embraced the Journal's core mission of making BJUI Compass home to any article within the field of urology that has been conducted with sound science principles. ¹

Although we are thrilled with the growth we have experienced, this has come with some pains. In particular, at times, we have struggled to find a sufficient number of reviewers for the many excellent submissions we receive. This problem is certainly not unique to BJUI Compass and stems from what has been termed ‘reviewer fatigue.’ ² Simply put, reviewers cannot keep up with the ever‐increasing number of requests they receive, causing many to ignore invitations to review altogether. This has been exacerbated by the fact that many reviewers have become disillusioned by the lack of personal gain from participating in the peer‐review process. ³ Reviewer fatigue seems particularly prominent among surgeons, who are the most prone to physician burnout. ⁴ As a result, the concept of reviewing for the ‘love of the game’ or out of a feeling of responsibility to the field simply no longer exists.

Recognising the central role of reviewers to the success of academic publishing, we at BJUI Compass are committed to taking steps towards overcoming reviewer fatigue. Through the use of incentives or rewards, we aim to improve the number, quality and speed at which reviews are completed for the journal. Starting this month, we will be introducing tangible rewards to reviewers as thanks for their hard work.

The first of these rewards will be the ability to earn continuing medical education credits upon completion of a review. These credits can be used to fulfil licensure and credentialling requirements. We hope that this indirectly decreases the financial burden placed on urologists who otherwise must pay to obtain these credits by some other means. This system has been in place for several years at other Wiley journals and has proven to be an attractive reward for reviewers.

A second incentive we will be introducing for our reviewers is a system for earning credit towards a free publication within the journal. As most of our readers are likely aware, publication within BJUI Compass, which operates under an open‐access model, typically comes at a financial cost to the authors. Although some institutions and medical societies have existing agreements for no‐cost or discounted publishing within the Journal, most authors are required to pay some amount for publishing. Under our new reviewer incentive programme, individuals who complete a review in a timely fashion (i.e. <14 days from invitation) will earn a partial credit towards the cost of publishing an original article or review. A total of six reviews completed within a 12‐month period will be required to earn a full credit for a free article. This credit may be redeemed at any point in the future and will be honoured regardless of the credit holder's position on the author list. We hope that this measure simultaneously increases reviewer motivation  as well as interest in publishing in the Journal.

Although the goal of these first two rewards is to increase the number of reviewers accepting assignments, we do recognise that an unintended consequence may be a rise in lesser‐quality reviews by individuals looking to ‘game the system’. This concern is real and has previously been an issue of debate in the literature on scientific publishing. ³ To address this, we will also introduce a third incentive to reviewers based solely on the quality of reviews they submit. This incentive will involve inviting reviewers who have placed apparent effort and thought into a review with the opportunity to publish a separate editorial alongside the reviewed article. This will allow reviewers to share the knowledge they have displayed on a given topic and provide open recognition for their contribution to the Journal. These editorials will be published free of charge, and reviewers who are tapped for this opportunity will be allowed to invite up to two additional co‐authors. Invited editorials will have a separate title from the articles they refer to and will be indexed in Pubmed/MEDLINE. These types of editorials have existed for several years at BJU International, and I have personally been motivated by this carrot in the past. ⁵ , ⁶ , ⁷ , ⁸

I hope that the steps described here demonstrate the Journal's loyalty and commitment to the community of authors and reviewers that support BJUI Compass. We have no illusions that these measures alone will fix the issue of author fatigue, but we hope we can see some degree of progress over the next year with these changes in place. We will continue to evaluate this issue and, if needed, devise other ways to improve the peer‐review process.