Sir

M. H. Dominiczak's comments on peer review in Correspondence (Nature 421, 111; 200310.1038/421111a) are a useful reminder that this mainly secret activity is essential for the quality of scientific publications to be kept as high as possible. High-quality reviewing is time-consuming and in some ways is comparable to co-authorship, supervision and teaching, often giving rise to highly influential scientific debate. Yet it is almost without tangible reward, other than the private satisfaction of a job well done or the thanks of the author to an anonymous referee in the small print.

At present, very few scientific journals pay their reviewers. More substantial financial rewards are unlikely to improve the quality of reviews, and are too costly for most journals, as discussed in your News Feature “Publish, and be damned...” (Nature 419, 772–776; 2002). For many years, as your feature noted, some journals have published lists of their referees, and the American Geophysical Union runs a scheme to honour their best reviewers. Yet although these initiatives are welcome, they do not provide lasting motivation.

Scientists often briefly mention their reviewing activity in their CVs, listing the journals and frequency of reviews. We propose that these qualifications should be made a standard part of the CV as well as of research units' annual reports. This offers relevant information about scientific status, acquaintance with the literature, and willingness to offer free advice, which in itself is of considerable relevance to grant applications and in appointments. The quality of the journals and the frequency of reviews would be a measure of distinction, as editors use good reviewers most often. Our proposal could gradually improve the quality and status of reviewing — assuming that journals would be willing to verify reviewers' figures — and would provide a more enduring incentive for people to participate in this otherwise often frustrating duty.