01997nas a2200265   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002260001200043653001100055653002700066653001500093653001600108653002600124653002500150653001500175653003800190653001600228100001600244700003300260245006700293300001200360490000700372520133800379022001401717       2025                            d  c2025-0710aHumans10aManuscript peer review10aMotivation10apeer review10aPeer Review, Research10aPeriodicals as Topic10aPublishing10aequity, article processing charge10areciprocity1 aDavid Moher1 aAnna Catharina Vieira Armond00aPublisher and journal reciprocity for peer review: Not so much  a832-8370 v323 aPeer reviewers provide a critical role in helping journals keep publishing. To understand the rewards and incentives offered to peer reviewers, we assessed what journals/publishers offered to one peer reviewer in biomedicine over a 1-month period (June 2023). After receiving 88 peer reviewer invitations, we noted that incentives were minimal. They include access to journal/publisher peer review training materials, reduced author processing charges of future article submissions, and free access to the journal/publisher website. Depending on the acceptance rate (30% or 50%) of recommendations to publish the article, peer review from this sample could generate anywhere from $USD 897,000 to $USD 1.45 million dollars when annualized. However, little, if any of this revenue is shared directly or indirectly with peer reviewers. With almost no reciprocity in the peer review process, journals and their publishers need to promote and establish more reciprocity in a system that currently largely favors them disproportionately. This study is an anecdotal perspective of one peer reviewer's experience over a single month. While anecdotal, these findings highlight issues about the fairness and sustainability of the peer review system. We encourage others to expand on what we have done and include more empirical investigations.  a1545-5815