What motivates academics to act as reviewers? Exploring Chinese academics’ motivations to review for international journals

Peer review is a cornerstone of science. However, a growing body of scholarly work argues that peer review is in a state of crisis, partly due to the number of submissions of manuscripts to international journals outpacing the capacity of journals to review them competently, unbiasedly and within expected timeframes. In this context, some of the most pressing concerns are reviewers’ willingness to review and reviewer fatigue. Studies focusing on academics’ motivations to review for international journals have mostly focused on those working in North America and Europe. Less is known about Chinese academics’ willingness to review, although they are increasingly playing a key role in global knowledge production. This study explores the motivations of Chinese academics to engage with peer review for international journals. Based on interviews with 47 Chinese academics, our findings show that they perceive reviewing as a scholarly responsibility, part research and part service, which is consistent with the motivations of reviewers globally. Chinese academics engage with peer review based on five rationales: responsibility, networking, reputation, research benefits and tangible rewards. Those in the social sciences and humanities also engage in peer review to influence ‘research on China’, while those in science and engineering fields do not have this concern. This difference is influenced by the respective focality and traditions of these fields.