Research integrity and peer review最新文献

{"title":"Self-reported availability of research data in American Psychological Association journal articles: a cross-sectional investigation.","authors":"Claire C Guyatt, Gert Storms","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00235-w","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00235-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prior evidence suggests that journals requiring open data are associated with higher levels of data sharing in the published psychology literature. Data sharing policies are not, however, consistently implemented or enforced. The American Psychological Association (APA), in 2020, signed onto the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines, which promote increasingly stringent data sharing policies. The current study examined self-reported data sharing in APA journals and whether stricter policies are linked to higher levels of self-reported data sharing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We assessed self-reported data sharing practices in 1,250 articles published between 2023 and 2025 in 25 APA journals. Using logistic regression, we examined the association between journal policy level and self-reported data sharing. We then applied post-stratification weighting, based on the actual distribution of policy levels across APA journals and their associated percentages of data sharing, to estimate the overall percentage of self-reported data sharing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We estimated overall self-reported data sharing to be 30.3% (95% CI [27.7, 33.0]). Journal policy stringency was strongly associated with self-reported data sharing: among journals with no data sharing policy, 15.0% of articles reported shared data (30 out of 200; 95% CI [10.7, 20.6]); among journals that mandate that authors reveal whether they shared their data, 26.4% of articles reported shared data (145 out of 550; 95% CI [22.8, 30.2]), and among journals that mandate data sharing, 70.4% of articles reported shared data (352 out of 500; 95% CI [66.2, 74.2]). At the same time, even journals with more stringent data sharing requirements did not consistently enforce their policies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results indicate that despite widespread endorsement of open science practices, data sharing is not yet a customary practice among psychology researchers. The observed self-reported data sharing practices do, however, show that more stringent journal policy requirements are associated with increased openness. While the observational nature of the present study precludes strong causal inferences, stricter journal policies may represent one potential factor relating to the adoption of data sharing practices, including the use of data embargoes and greater transparency around decisions not to share data. Overall, findings highlight a promising direction for ongoing efforts to promote openness in data sharing, while underscoring the need for future research to clarify the mechanisms that link policy to practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13595531/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148354988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Indirect measurement of research misconduct among Iranian postgraduate students of medical sciences using the unmatched count technique.","authors":"Sanaz Omidi, Younes Mohammadi, Fariba Fatehi, Abouzar Raeisvandi, Fatemeh Ebrahimi, Tina Lari, Hanieh Moradi, Marzieh Otogara, Masoumeh Javaheri","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00202-5","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00202-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research misconduct poses a serious threat to academic integrity, particularly in medical sciences. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of various forms of research misconduct include plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, authorship misconduct, salami slicing, and purchasing research work among postgraduate students in Iranian medical universities using the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey was conducted among postgraduate students from multiple Iranian medical universities using a double-list version of the unmatched count technique (UCT). The questionnaire was administered in two sequential waves, with approximately half of participants completing List A and the remaining participants completing List B, ensuring that each respondent received only one list version. For each research misconduct behavior, prevalence was estimated by calculating the mean difference in endorsement counts between lists containing the sensitive item and corresponding control lists with only non-sensitive items. In the double-list design, prevalence estimates were computed separately for List A and List B, with sensitive items counterbalanced across list positions to control for order effects. The final prevalence was calculated as the average of the two list-specific estimates, improving precision and reducing list-order bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The most commonly reported misconduct was using others' ideas or phrases without proper citation (43%), followed by dishonest result reporting (38%), data fabrication or deletion (34%), and authorship misrepresentation (34%). Salami slicing was reported by 26%, and 20% admitted to purchasing parts or all of a research project. The UCT survey tool demonstrated acceptable reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from 0.64 to 0.84.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings indicate a troubling level of research misconduct among postgraduatestudents in Iran's medical sciences universities. This highlights the need for effective ethics training, stronger academic integrity policies, and enforceable institutional mechanisms to promote responsible research conduct and protect the future credibility of medical professionals.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13310431/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148341465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Expert opinion in decision-making: a systematic review of methods and the INTEGRITY framework for incorporating expert consultation into research.","authors":"Lesley Uttley, Louise Falzon, Nicholas Latimer, Thea Uttley, Shijie Ren","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00213-2","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00213-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Experts and their opinions can play a pivotal role in research for decision-making, particularly where empirical data are limited or uncertain. However, the methods by which expert input is solicited, synthesised, and applied in research often lack consistency and transparency. The absence of cross-disciplinary guidelines for how expert opinion should be gathered, integrated into research, and utilised in decision-making leaves the process vulnerable to conflicts of interest, interpersonal dynamics, and researcher discretion. Using health technology assessment (HTA) as a case study, we conducted a systematic review of empirical studies examining the use of expert opinion in research for decision-making. Twenty-three studies were included, from which six broad categories of expert consultation methods were identified, ranging from informal individual consultation to structured expert elicitation protocols. Considerable variation was observed in both the methodological rigour and transparency with which expert consultation was conducted and reported. Drawing on the review findings, we propose a preliminary conceptual framework (INTEGRITY) that synthesises psychosocial, methodological and reporting factors to promote transparency, rigour, inclusivity and objectivity when incorporating expert consultation into research. For low-stakes exploratory judgements, informal consultation may be sufficient. For high-stakes policy or resource-allocation decisions that require quantitative estimates, structured and transparent approaches such as formal elicitation protocols should be considered to support inclusive, objective, rigorous, and transparent use of expert judgement in research.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13292522/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148310736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"From concept to measurement: operationalizing and normalizing Integrity Risk Indicators by SCImago (IRIS).","authors":"Rodrigo Sánchez-Jiménez, Vicente P Guerrero-Bote, Gali Halevi, Félix De-Moya-Anegón, Daniel Gómez González","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00233-y","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00233-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Integrity Risk Indicators by SCImago (IRIS) framework, developed by the SCImago Research Group, addresses growing concerns about trust in science by shifting research assessment from traditional output and citation-based measures toward the evaluation of institutional exposure to research integrity risks. Rather than focusing on individual misconduct, IRIS recognizes the central role of institutional incentive systems, governance structures, and operational cultures in shaping research integrity. IRIS provides a constructive, data-informed model for identifying structural vulnerabilities associated with practices such as authorship and affiliation patterns, dissemination and citation dynamics, publication venue credibility, and the sustainability and transparency of publication practices. The indicators are derived from bibliometric and publication data and are intended as signals of potential risk, not as diagnoses or judgments. Applied to Higher Education Institutions included in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, IRIS enables meaningful comparison through z-score normalization, placing heterogeneous indicators on a common, interpretable scale centered on the global mean. The use of standardized scores enhances sensitivity to the magnitude of deviations, allowing IRIS to better function as a risk detection system, rather than a competitive ranking, and to support institutions in strengthening responsible and trustworthy research environments.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13543602/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148304291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction: Making scientific publishing more balanced and reversing the current dangerous drift to better support global environmental conservation and planetary health.","authors":"Paolo Guidetti, Carlo Nike Bianchi, John Baxter, Nane Pelke, Charles-François Boudouresque","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00232-z","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00232-z","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13289541/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148310701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Scientific misconduct, questionable research practices, and research climate: empirical approaches to integrity problems.","authors":"Serhii Nazarovets","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00214-1","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00214-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Empirical research on scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) has increasingly adopted a systemic perspective, emphasising research climate, supervision, and organisational conditions. This PRISMA-guided scoping review synthesises 229 survey- and interview-based studies published between 2016 and 2025 to examine how misconduct and QRPs are empirically operationalised in perception- and climate-oriented research. Rather than aiming to estimate prevalence, the review focuses on the concepts, instruments, and methodological choices through which integrity problems are rendered measurable. The findings show that aggregate harm is rarely defined explicitly and is instead inferred from perceived prevalence and severity of practices. Severe violations dominate measurement frameworks, while routine, relational, and structurally induced practices remain weakly captured. Methodological patterns further shape what becomes empirically visible, highlighting the need for approaches that better integrate individual perceptions with institutional conditions when assessing integrity risks.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13285515/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148297764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Research integrity within systematic reviews: investigating the prevalence of studies by authors with multiple retraction histories in Cochrane reviews.","authors":"Theint Moh Moh Zaw, James Heathers, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00205-2","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00205-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research misconduct poses a significant threat to the integrity of evidence synthesis. Although Cochrane reviews are known for rigorous methodological standards, the potential inclusion of studies authored by researchers with substantial retractions records raises concerns about the reliability of their conclusions.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to (a) quantify the extent to which Cochrane reviews include or cite papers authored by researchers with at least 24 retractions (as listed in the Retraction Watch Leaderboard),and (b) examine whether sensitivity analyses were performed and identify the stated reasons for excluding those studies from the reviews.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Retraction Watch database was used to identify researchers with 24 or more retractions in the database. This was done with custom code in Stata, created to identify individuals with > 24 entries. Data on Cochrane's systematic reviews that included or referenced the studies by authors with 24 or more retraction records was collected. For reviews where these studies were excluded, the stated reasons for exclusion were recorded. We also assessed the frequency and nature of sensitivity analyses conducted to account for potential bias from problematic studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 9,323 Cochrane Reviews, 81(0.9%)included or cited at least one potentially fraudulent study. 57(0.6%) of these reviews referenced and 32(0.3%) included such studies in meta-analyses. In cases where such studies were excluded, the justification was typically unrelated to trustworthiness. Of the 32 reviews that include potentially fraudulent studies, only a minority of reviews (19%, 6 out of 32) conducted sensitivity analyses after paper exclusions, primarily due to retracted papers, with only one analysis conducted in response to potential fraudulent studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The inclusion or insufficient handling of studies by highly retracted researchers in Cochrane reviews without sensitivity analysis highlights the concerns regarding the integrity and reliability of evidence used to guide clinical practice. This study underscores the need for formal mechanisms to assess author trustworthiness, recommends transparency in handling these studies, and calls for sensitivity analyses to be mandatory.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13285528/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148297609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Integrating community Live Reviews into academic publishing: an exploratory study.","authors":"Christopher I Petkov, Vanessa Fairhurst, Monica Granados, Yogita Chudasama, Gail Rodney, Syeda A Jabeen, Stephen David, Anna S Mitchell, P Christiaan Klink, Bahar Mehmani, Daniela Saderi","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00210-5","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00210-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Academic peer review is fundamental for scientific knowledge dissemination, and various initiatives are exploring how the peer review process could be more open, efficient and rewarding. We report an exploratory study where a live community-based review approach was integrated into the editorial workflow of an academic journal (Current Research in Neurobiology; CRNEUR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was conducted with five manuscripts ('cases') submitted as preprints, which underwent Live Review-a structured collaborative review session led by PREreview, an organization with the mission to advance equity and openness in scholarly evaluation. With each case, PREreview team members facilitated a 90-min online discussion where registered participants provided real-time discussion and worked together on the online structured peer review document. Authors could join as observers or to answer questions. Participants then volunteered to write up the session notes into a final review and summary statement. Review participants had the option to sign the review. The finalized review was then published on PREreview's open preprint review platform approximately two weeks after the Live Review session, and it was assigned a CC BY 4.0 license and Digital Object Identifier (DOI) linked to the DOI of the reviewed preprint allowing reviewers to be recognized for their contribution. The published review was then incorporated into CRNEUR's editorial workflow to inform editorial decisions and manuscript outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We quantified the speed to first and final editorial decision of the community review (n = 5) in comparison to a larger sample (n = 27) of articles that went through a standard review process at CRNEUR during the same timeframe. First decision times in days after manuscript submission of the Live Reviews were within the Inter Quartile Range (IQR) of the standard review process (community review: median = 75, IQR: 41.3; standard review: median 92, IQR: 41.5), as were final decision times (community review: median 138, IQR: 22.5; standard review: median 211, IQR: 166.0). A survey of the Live Review attendees (n = 13; 30% response rate) on a scale of 1 'Highly Disagree' to 5 'Highly Agree' showed median 'Agree' to 'Highly Agree' scores on several questions including the review being respectful, time efficient and scientifically rigorous (median scores: 5, 4, 4, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The innovative Live Review approach was as efficient as the standard review process in the journal and was rated positively by those surveyed. The small sample size inherent to exploratory studies limits conclusions generalizing to larger sample sizes. We discuss how live, community-based review approaches could be further developed, scaled and sustained.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13283327/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148297641","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Barriers and enablers for publishing results of randomized trials: a cross-sectional survey of principal investigators in sub-Saharan Africa.","authors":"Ameer Hohlfeld, Tamara Kredo, Michael Clarke","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00207-0","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00207-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the views and experiences of principal investigators (PIs) based in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) regarding publication bias of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and strategies to mitigate it.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional online survey, informed by previous reviews and prior surveys on publication bias. The survey consisted of closed-ended items with Likert scales and optional free text.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>We emailed invitations to African-based PIs that we identified through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>6056 invitations were sent, 610 opened the survey, 433 were eligible to partake, and 409 consented and proceeded with the survey.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measured: </strong>Awareness and perceived magnitude of publication bias in SSA, experiences of timely publication, non-publication, delayed publication and their perceived effectiveness of mitigating strategies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Awareness that all RCTs are to be published was 62.7% (227/362). More than 90% agreed that PIs are responsible for ensuring that their RCTs are published (295/323), and 84% (272/323) within 24 months of completion. Publication bias in SSA scored a median of 71/100 (IQR: 50 - 84) for geographical region and 66 (IQR = 40 -79) for the respondent's specific field of research. Of the respondents, 63.1% (219/347) published the findings of at least one RCT within 24 months, and 23.6% (82/347) were unable to publish at least one complete RCT. Notably, 74% (246/332) indicated not having had prior training in writing RCT-specific manuscripts. Of the 82 that were unable to publish, their reported reasons for non-publication included 30.5% (25/82) journal rejection, 29.3% (24/82) time constraints, 14.6% (12/82) non-significant or 13.4% (11/82) non-positive results, 13.4% (11/82) methodological concerns and 12.2% (10/82) lack of confidence in writing. 41.2% (143/347) of respondents reported delays greater than 24 months, 47.9% (69/347) attributed time constraint, 38.9% (56/347) time-consuming analysis, and 36.8% (53/347) journal rejection. Of the 332 participants that answered questions on mitigating strategies, the following were suggested to be very effective: 56.6%(188/332) dedicated writing time, 37.1% (123/332) guidance on writing a manuscript and 35.8% (119/332) peer-review prior to submission. Furthermore, 52.7% (175/332) rated the CONSORT checklist as effective/very effective, and 37.4% (124/332) noted artificial intelligence tools somewhat effective.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SSA PIs note that publication bias is a problem, which is a result of barriers such as time constraints, analysis difficulties, journal rejection, and limited writing support. Enablers include mentorship, dedicated writing time, and structured reporting tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13281464/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148280280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Motivations and barriers to engaging in peer review: a qualitative study.","authors":"Júlio Belo Fernandes, Ana Silva Almeida, Faiza Magsi, Ana Catarina Maia, Sónia Fernandes","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00208-z","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00208-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peer 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reviewer 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13277020/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148274291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}