The publication of high-quality manuscripts in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance (IJSPP) and other scientific journals relies on scholarly prepublication peer review. To ensure that we do not unnecessarily use our valuable reviewer pool, all manuscripts in IJSPP go through a preliminary review by the Editor, Editorial Assistant, and one of the Associate Editors. In this process, we check if the manuscript fits within the scope of the journal, is novel enough, and is of sufficient quality. Only when this preliminary review has been passed will the manuscript progress and be sent out for peer review. Subsequently, discipline experts in the field are asked to voluntarily evaluate the novelty and quality of the research question and experimental design, robustness of the methodology, and presentation, discussion, and practical applications of the findings. Here, 2 high-quality reviews are required before an editorial decision is taken. The scholarly prepublication peer-review process is essential to maintaining the quality of our journal. However, this process only functions well when authors review at least 2 papers for each manuscript they submit.

There is a consensus among researchers that prepublication peer review is important. A survey performed by the Publishing Research Consortium showed that 65% of researchers are satisfied with the peer-review process, and 82% supported the statement that “without peer review there is no control in scientific communication.”^1(p1) It is therefore not unexpected that the most common internal incentive for performing peer review is “communal obligations and reciprocity.”² External incentives for performing peer review are “career advancement,” “being recognized as an expert,” and “building relationships with journals and editors.” Even though most researchers highlight the need for scholarly prepublication peer review and perceive clear incentives for performing this task, we have experienced that it is becoming increasingly difficult to secure the services of 2 expert reviewers. We also require reviewer reports to be returned in a timely fashion and with sufficient quality.

The mean number of reviewer invitations per manuscript that we sent out to secure 2 reviews increased from 3.6 in 2014 to 7.2 so far in 2024 (see Figure 1). This increase might not sound dramatic, but considering that we need to invite an additional 3.6 reviewers per manuscript, and that the maximum number of invites sent out for 1 manuscript was 29 in 2023, the peer-review process has become more protracted. The increased difficulty in finding reviewers has also been raised by other editorial boards.³ Clearly, academics are being hired and receive funding and/or promotion based on quantitative metrics such as the number of published manuscripts, while the number of peer reviews performed is not considered.⁴ The focus on increasing the number (and quality) of one’s publications not only results in more submissions but might also be one of the reasons that academics are becoming less willing to review the manuscripts of others. A stressful academic life forces many to down-prioritize reviewer duties for their own “survival.”

View Full Size

—Growth in the mean number of review invitations sent out by IJSPP to ensure that 2 reviewers are secured for each manuscript. Error bars represent the SD.

Citation: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 19, 8; 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0252

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In IJSPP, we aim to provide all submissions with a timely and high-quality review while also understanding the time constraints of our reviewers. Accordingly, the topic of reviewer incentives was at the top of our priority list during the last meeting of our editorial board. To thank our reviewers for devoting their valuable time to providing timely and high-quality reviews, we now provide them (as of February 2024) with a waiver of the submission fee (currently $US40) on their next manuscript submitted to IJSPP when they have completed 3 reviews with an average reviewer score above 2.0. A reviewer score is provided by the Associate Editor handling the review process; the review is rated on a scale of 1 to 3 for timeliness and quality (1 = review was severely delayed, or quality was below average, while 3 = review was submitted on time and deemed highly relevant). The instructions and form to apply for a waiver of the submission fee are located under step 1 of the ScholarOne online submission process. Although this is a small gesture, we hope this additional external incentive shows our gratitude and allows us to maintain our valuable reviewer pool, helping us provide authors with a timely review process.