Why does anyone agree to review a manuscript at all? It's unpaid, mostly invisible work, on top of a reviewer's own research and clinical or academic responsibilities. Yet the entire scholarly publishing system depends on people saying yes. I work on peer review operations and editorial policy at JMIR Publications, and this is the question I keep coming back to.
| Key Takeaways |
| Peer review capacity is a motivation problem, not just logistics: Automating workflows isn't enough; real capacity growth depends on actively engaging reviewers by making their invisible labor visible and valued. |
| Recognition improves review speed and quality: Early data shows reviewers opted into recognition programs complete tasks faster, and counter to common concerns, they provide higher-quality work. |
| Visibility is the key to scalability: Investing in simple recognition programs is an effective, lower-effort alternative to massive platform overhauls for sustaining peer review trust and volume. |
It's also the question at the center of this year's Peer Review Week: "Peer Review Capacity: Volume, Speed, and Quality." Submission volumes keep rising. Expectations for faster decisions keep growing. Reviewer availability keeps getting squeezed. The organizers frame it as one core question: how can peer review systems scale while maintaining quality, trust, and fairness?
Most conversations about capacity focus on tools: better reviewer-matching algorithms, smarter workflow automation, AI-assisted screening. Those are all important, but they don’t address a basic issue. None of it works if reviewers don't want to review in the first place. Capacity is not a logistics problem alone, it's also a motivation problem, and that's where recognition comes in.
Karma: recognition built into the workflow
Earlier this year, JMIR launched Karma – a program built to make reviewers' contributions visible and
valued. The mechanics are straightforward: reviewers earn 90 Karma points for each initial, qualifying peer review they complete, awarded on the merits of the review itself and independent of the editorial decision the manuscript eventually receives. Each point equates to USD 1 in credits, which reviewers can apply toward APCs or other JMIR paid services. Beyond Karma, reviewers also get non-monetary recognition: annual digital badges and certificates, and official recognition of their verified reviews through integrations with ORCID and Web of Science.
What we are seeing so far
In just over six months since Karma launched, two patterns have held up consistently in the data (with the caveat that this is still an early, evolving picture, not a finished study.)
First: reviewers who opted in to receive Karma complete their reviews faster once they have agreed to do them. That's a direct, encouraging answer to the "speed" piece of this year's Peer Review Week theme. Recognition doesn't just motivate reviewers; it appears to encourage them to provide reviews quicker.
Second: review quality has increased since Karma launched. Reviewers who opted in to Karma have consistently been providing higher quality reviews, as objectively rated by our in-house team of Editors. That directly addresses a common concern around financial incentives: that they lead to faster but sloppier work.
Why this matters beyond one program
I don't think every publisher needs to replicate Karma point-for-point to take something from this. The underlying principle is what’s important: peer review capacity is something you help build by making reviewers' labor visible and valued, not just by adding more tools to the pipeline. Recognition programs are fairly simple to implement compared to a platform overhaul of new tools, and they speak directly to the human side of what a lot of us are asking: how can we scale peer review without losing what makes it worth trusting?
If you're curious about how the program works, or want to join our community of peer reviewers, visit JMIR's Karma homepage.
