https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00968-6 Skip to main content Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript. Advertisement Advertisement Nature * View all journals * Search * Log in * Explore content * About the journal * Publish with us * Subscribe * Sign up for alerts * RSS feed 1. nature 2. news 3. article * NEWS * 28 March 2025 Publishers trial paying peer reviewers -- what did they find? Two journals embarked on efforts to compensate reviewers, with different results. By * Holly Else 1. Holly Else View author publications You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar * Twitter * Facebook * Email You have full access to this article via your institution. Close up view of an unidentified man's hands turning pages of a printed manuscript where some words have been highlighted. Trials suggest that offering payment can increase the chance of a researcher agreeing to review, and in some cases speed up the process. Credit: Catherine Falls Commercial/Getty A spate of research findings offer fresh evidence in the debate about whether peer reviewers should be paid for their time and expertise -- a fraught topic that has provoked discussion among researchers. This month, two journals released data from their own experiments that suggest that offering payments of around US$250 to researchers who review manuscripts speeds up the process, without affecting the quality of reviews. But some specialists warn that the practice could have unintended consequences for science and publishing. Although both trials are small, they are a good start at gathering data on paid peer review, says Balazs Aczel, a psychologist at Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest. But he adds that whether to pay peer reviewers remains "a very complicated question". Rewarding reviewers The peer-review system has come under pressure in recent years as more science is published and scientists face more demands on their time. Journal editors now find it harder to secure reviews and some scientists have questioned the fairness of their voluntary labour being relied upon by some highly profitable publishing companies. The idea of paying peer reviewers has long been discussed, but few publishers have chosen to go down this route so far. Economics journals have experimented with the idea in the past, and some medical journals pay certain reviewers. Others have adopted less-conventional compensation systems: open-access mega journal PeerJ uses a token system that gives reviewers a discount on publishing fees, whereas another title pays its reviewers in a specially developed cryptocurrency. [d41586-025] 'Getting paid to review is justice': journal pays peer reviewers in cryptocurrency Some researchers fear that offering reviewers cash incentives could lessen the quality of reviews or change the landscape of research in other, as-yet unknown ways. But until now, there has been a lack of hard evidence about the potential benefits and drawbacks. Intrigued about the effect of paying peer reviewers, editors at the journal Critical Care Medicine launched a six-month experiment led by David Maslove, a clinical scientist at Queen's University in Kingston, Canada. Starting in September 2023, the journal asked 715 researchers to review papers. It offered roughly half of them a US$250 incentive. The results, published in the journal earlier this month^1, found that paying for reviews moderately improved both the number of accepted invitations and the speed at which reviews were carried out. Some 53% of researchers accepted the invitation to review when offered payment, compared with 48% of those who received a standard, non-paid offer. On average, paid reviews came in one day earlier than unpaid ones. Journal editors assessed reviews from paid and unpaid reviewers and found no difference in quality. Maslove says that the small size of the effect suggests that money has a limited effect on motivating peer reviewers to change their behaviour. "There could be these other values that peer reviewers have, whether it's a sense of responsibility or loyalty or owing to society." Speed advantage A separate experiment at the journal Biology Open, found a larger effect, albeit with fewer reviewers. For six months starting in July 2024, editors covering two of the journal's ten subject areas treated reviewers as paid contractors under two systems. Reviewers were either offered a PS600 (US$776) retainer to review up to three papers per quarter, or were paid PS220 per review. Under this scheme, editors would send freelance reviewers an invitation to review, which they had to accept or decline within one business day. Once accepted, the reviewer had four days to submit their peer-review report. A total of 20 manuscripts were reviewed in this way. Enjoying our latest content? Login or create an account to continue * Access the most recent journalism from Nature's award-winning team * Explore the latest features & opinion covering groundbreaking research Access through your institution or Sign in or create an account # Continue with Google # Continue with ORCiD doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00968-6 References 1. Cotton, C. S. et al. Crit. Care Med. https://doi.org/10.1097/ CCM.0000000000006637 (2025). Article Google Scholar 2. Gorelick, D. A. & Clark, A. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/ 10.1101/2025.03.18.644032 (2025). Download references Reprints and permissions Related Articles * [d41586-025] 'Getting paid to review is justice': journal pays peer reviewers in cryptocurrency * [d41586-025] Stop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off * [d41586-025] Three AI-powered steps to faster, smarter peer review * [d41586-025] New peer-review trial lets grant applicants evaluate each other's proposals * [d41586-025] Nature is trialling transparent peer review -- the early results are encouraging * [d41586-025] Crowd-based peer review can be good and fast * [d41586-025] ChatGPT is transforming peer review -- how can we use it responsibly? * [d41586-025] If you can't be kind in peer review, be neutral Subjects * Publishing Latest on: Publishing Do smartphones and social media really harm teens' mental health? Do smartphones and social media really harm teens' mental health? News Feature 02 APR 25 China has already taken steps to reduce retractions of papers from its hospitals Correspondence 01 APR 25 Incredible close-up of colourful crab spiders -- March's best science images Incredible close-up of colourful crab spiders -- March's best science images News 31 MAR 25 Nature Careers Jobs * Chief Editor, Nature Biomedical Engineering Job Title: Chief Editor, Nature Biomedical Engineering Locations: New York, Beijing or Shanghai (Hybrid Working Model) Application Deadline: April ... New York City, New York (US) Springer Nature Ltd [] * Global Talent Recruitment-Hospital of Stomatology Xi'an Jiaotong University Leading Scholars, Excellent Young Scholars(Overseas), Outstanding Young Talents, Professor , Associate Professor Xian, Shaanxi (CN) Hospital of Stomatology Xi'an Jiaotong University [] * Faculty Positions in Advanced Materials Thrust, Function Hub, HKUST(GZ) Faculty Positions in Advanced Materials Thrust, Function Hub, HKUST(GZ). Guangzhou, Guangdong, China The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) [] * Postdoctoral Scholar-Department of Dermatology The Department of Dermatology at the University of California, Irvine anticipates openings for a postdoctoral scholar. Applications are being sough... University of California Irvine, Irvine Ampi Montiel, AP&HR Manager [] * Canada Excellence Research Chairs (CERC) Montreal, Quebec (CA) University of Montreal (UdeM) [] Related Articles * [d41586-025] 'Getting paid to review is justice': journal pays peer reviewers in cryptocurrency * [d41586-025] Stop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off * [d41586-025] Three AI-powered steps to faster, smarter peer review * [d41586-025] New peer-review trial lets grant applicants evaluate each other's proposals * [d41586-025] Nature is trialling transparent peer review -- the early results are encouraging * [d41586-025] Crowd-based peer review can be good and fast * [d41586-025] ChatGPT is transforming peer review -- how can we use it responsibly? * [d41586-025] If you can't be kind in peer review, be neutral Subjects * Publishing Advertisement Sign up to Nature Briefing An essential round-up of science news, opinion and analysis, delivered to your inbox every weekday. Email address [ ] [ ] Yes! Sign me up to receive the daily Nature Briefing email. I agree my information will be processed in accordance with the Nature and Springer Nature Limited Privacy Policy. Sign up Close Nature Briefing Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter -- what matters in science, free to your inbox daily. Email address [ ] Sign up [ ] I agree my information will be processed in accordance with the Nature and Springer Nature Limited Privacy Policy. Close Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing Explore content * Research articles * News * Opinion * Research Analysis * Careers * Books & Culture * Podcasts * Videos * Current issue * Browse issues * Collections * Subjects * Follow us on Facebook * Follow us on Twitter * Subscribe * Sign up for alerts * RSS feed About the journal * Journal Staff * About the Editors * Journal Information * Our publishing models * Editorial Values Statement * Journal Metrics * Awards * Contact * Editorial policies * History of Nature * Send a news tip Publish with us * For Authors * For Referees * Language editing services * Submit manuscript Search Search articles by subject, keyword or author [ ] Show results from [All journals] Search Advanced search Quick links * Explore articles by subject * Find a job * Guide to authors * Editorial policies Nature (Nature) ISSN 1476-4687 (online) ISSN 0028-0836 (print) nature.com sitemap About Nature Portfolio * About us * Press releases * Press office * Contact us Discover content * Journals A-Z * Articles by subject * protocols.io * Nature Index Publishing policies * Nature portfolio policies * Open access Author & Researcher services * Reprints & permissions * Research data * Language editing * Scientific editing * Nature Masterclasses * Research Solutions Libraries & institutions * Librarian service & tools * Librarian portal * Open research * Recommend to library Advertising & partnerships * Advertising * Partnerships & Services * Media kits * Branded content Professional development * Nature Careers * Nature Conferences Regional websites * Nature Africa * Nature China * Nature India * Nature Italy * Nature Japan * Nature Middle East * Privacy Policy * Use of cookies * Your privacy choices/Manage cookies * Legal notice * Accessibility statement * Terms & Conditions * Your US state privacy rights Springer Nature (c) 2025 Springer Nature Limited