In a voluntary market, journal editors provide non-financial rewards to incentivize researchers. Many shower their best reviewers with accolades at national conferences, print their name in journals, and consider their best and brightest reviewers for prestigious positions on their editorial boards.

Publons is not the only attempt to recognize and reward academics for their refereeing activity. As Nature noted last year (see Nature 493, 5; 2013), publishers are increasing their efforts to reward assiduous reviewers. The Nature journals give a free subscription to anyone who has refereed three or more papers in a year for them, and allow peer reviewers to download a statement of work. Similarly, science publisher Elsevier this year launched a system to formally recognize its peer reviewers, and to give rewards to ‘outstanding reviewers’ — those who have reviewed the most papers.

Most academics will gladly work for free if treated well and lauded with the respect of their peers.

Today, reviewers for journals published by the American Economic Association are payed $100 for “timely reports.” It is not clear from the journal website what is meant by “timely.”

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/02/22/rewarding-reviewers-money-prestige-or-some-of-both/

http://www.nature.com/news/review-rewards-1.16138

Dear Hammad Khalil,

Look the link.

https://publons.com/about/rewards/

Regards, Shafagat

In a voluntary market, journal editors provide non-financial rewards to incentivize researchers. Many shower their best reviewers with accolades at national conferences, print their name in journals, and consider their best and brightest reviewers for prestigious positions on their editorial boards.

Publons is not the only attempt to recognize and reward academics for their refereeing activity. As Nature noted last year (see Nature 493, 5; 2013), publishers are increasing their efforts to reward assiduous reviewers. The Nature journals give a free subscription to anyone who has refereed three or more papers in a year for them, and allow peer reviewers to download a statement of work. Similarly, science publisher Elsevier this year launched a system to formally recognize its peer reviewers, and to give rewards to ‘outstanding reviewers’ — those who have reviewed the most papers.

Most academics will gladly work for free if treated well and lauded with the respect of their peers.

Today, reviewers for journals published by the American Economic Association are payed $100 for “timely reports.” It is not clear from the journal website what is meant by “timely.”

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/02/22/rewarding-reviewers-money-prestige-or-some-of-both/

http://www.nature.com/news/review-rewards-1.16138

@Shafagat, thanks for the material but I think their reward can be the recommendations and recognition they receive 

While I salute these reviewers for their hard work, I think the rewards are less than I expected. In my opinion, a reviewer who discovers any type of cheating in research papers ought to be described as hero/heroine besides doubling the rewards mentioned in (publons.com).

The main problem in this regard : "...finding, retaining and rewarding reviewers are long-term pain points for editors. Scientists are increasingly busy and often find it difficult to free up time to do reviews. At the same time, new approaches to peer review are being developed: for example, working in a more open and collaborative manner or making use of the latest technology. That makes these times challenging, as well as exciting, and this is reflected in the enthusiasm and energy with which new experiments are being launched in our organization."

Elsevier practice is attached, Elsevier Reviewer Badges and Rewards scheme !

http://www.elsevier.com/connect/3-pilot-programs-support-and-recognize-peer-reviewers

http://www.elsevierblogs.com/yourpeerreviewfuture/?page_id=242