[V] Motivations to Participate in the Peer Review Process at the Journal of Urology

Anne G. Dudley,¹ George Koch,² Kyle Rose,³ Roei Golan,⁴ Jennifer Regala,⁵ Casey Seideman,⁶ Amanda North,⁷ Kevin Koo,⁸ Kevan Sternberg,⁹ Gina Badalato,¹⁰ Benjamin Dropkin,¹¹ Nicholas Chakiryan,¹² Robert Siemens,¹³ Peter Clark,¹⁴ Andrew Harris¹¹ <h4>Objective</h4> Peer review is a critical aspect of academic publishing, yet the process takes significant time and energy for the reviewer and is a voluntary activity. Current surveys report high levels of urologist burnout, and recent events, including the COVID-19 pandemic, have led to a shift toward personal priorities outside of work potentially limiting reviewer pools. Within urology, editors report difficulty finding appropriate numbers of peer reviewers for submitted manuscripts. We sought to assess motivations to participate in the peer review process within a pool of recent <i>Journal of Urology</i> reviewers. <h4>Design</h4> <i>The Journal of Urology</i> partnered with members of the American Urologic Association publications team to develop and administer a web-based survey to a diverse group of reviewers from September 1 to December 31, 2023. All authors and reviewers over the preceding 3 years were invited to participate. The survey addressed various aspects including career stage, their experience as reviewers, and peer review process challenges, incentives, motivators, and feedback needs. <h4>Results</h4> Respondents (n = 275) completed an average of 9 reviews in the past 12 months and reported 16 years of experience as reviewers. Most reviewers were experienced urologists less than 11 years from training (64% [176]) with only 7% (18) currently in training (resident/fellow). Time emerged as a key variable with 86% (236) of respondents declining additional reviews due to time constraints. A total of 67% (184) of respondents reported reviewing time was worthwhile, yet only 35% (96) felt appropriately recognized for time and effort, and 55% (151) reported incentives would increase time spent on a peer review. Motivations to review included “to give back” (80% [220]), “to learn” (71% [195]), “to get involved” (61% [168]), and “to grow my career” (39% [107]). Most respondents (91% [250]) read other reviewers’ reviews to learn. When asked to select specific incentives to review more papers, American Urologic Association products such as waived meeting fees and membership were highly valued (64% [176]; 62% [170]), followed by recognition by local department leadership (43% [118]) and money (40% [109]). Only 14% (38) of respondents desired gear or swag, and only 23% (63) desired to be named in the journal alongside the manuscript. <h4>Conclusions</h4> Peer review motivations are diverse and suggest that urologists participate for professional development and an ongoing desire to learn and participate in the field as a whole. Study limitations include nonresponder bias, limited survey period, and lack of granular data on personal and professional motivators. Time remains an important constraint, but incentives may increase allocated time for academic pursuits. Professional meeting/membership fee waivers may be motivators to increase participation. Local efforts to recognize reviewers within departments may work synergistically to increase available reviewers and fulfill career development goals. ¹Connecticut Children’s, Hartford, CT, US, annedudleymd@gmail.com; ²The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, US; ³Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans, LA, US; ⁴Florida State University School of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, US; ⁵Wolters Kluwer Health, Baltimore, MD, US; ⁶Doernbecher Children’s Hospital at OHSU, Portland, OR, US; ⁷The Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, Bronx, NY, US; ⁸Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, US; ⁹Northwestern Medical Center, Chicago, IL, US; ¹⁰Columbia University, New York, NY, US; ¹¹University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, US; ¹²H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, US; ¹³Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada; ¹⁴Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, US. <h4>Conflict of Interest Disclosures</h4> None reported. <h4>Acknowledgment</h4> We thank Martha Keyes and the Journal of Urology publications staff for their assistance with this initiative.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.