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

OBJECTIVES: 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. DESIGN/SETTING: Two cross-sectional surveys administered via SurveyMonkey to P&P reviewers for The BMJ journal. PARTICIPANTS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.