BackgroundPeer review is a central mechanism of scientific communication. However, despite its critical role in safeguarding research quality and integrity, there is limited evidence on how reviewers themselves perceive the factors that motivate or hinder their engagement. This study explored reviewers' perceptions of the motivations and barriers shaping participation in peer review.MethodsA qualitative, exploratory-descriptive design was adopted. Semi-structured interviews were conducted betwee…
Read moreBackgroundPeer review is a central mechanism of scientific communication. However, despite its critical role in safeguarding research quality and integrity, there is limited evidence on how reviewers themselves perceive the factors that motivate or hinder their engagement. This study explored reviewers' perceptions of the motivations and barriers shaping participation in peer review.MethodsA qualitative, exploratory-descriptive design was adopted. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between June and September 2025 with participants holding an academic title in health sciences who had completed at least one peer review for a scientific journal. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed inductively using thematic analysis following Braun et al.’s framework. Data collection and analysis proceeded iteratively until thematic saturation was reached.ResultsTwenty-seven academics from seven health science disciplines participated in the study. Participants were predominantly female (63%), with similar proportions holding doctoral (52%) and master's degrees (48%), and peer-review activity in the previous 12 months ranging from 1 to more than 10 reviews. Findings were organised into two domains, motivations and barriers, comprising ten themes. Motivations included contribution to science, scientific development, career development, personal satisfaction, and financial incentives. Barriers included high workload, lack of recognition and incentives, perceived competence, research integrity, and editorial shortcomings.ConclusionReviewer engagement appears to be a negotiated process in which academics weigh motivations against barriers when deciding whether to participate in peer review. These trade-offs shape decisions to accept or decline review invitations. Strengthening recognition, transparency, and editorial support may help sustain reviewer participation in the health sciences.
