The peer review process is a necessary, labor-intensive, and imperfect element of scientific research. Among the many issues identified by its critics, finding willing reviewers can be an arduous task for journal editors and is acknowledged as one of the primary factors holding up the publication process. In an attempt to better understand and serve Health Communication reviewers, we surveyed them and inquired about their motivations for reviewing a manuscript, including why they agree, decline, or disregard invitations to review submissions. According to responses from 380 reviewers, the most compelling reasons for agreeing to review reflected a dedication to performing scholarly service and loyalty to the journal. The primary reasons selected for declining to review included lack of time and insufficient expertise to evaluate the submission. The main reasons for failing to respond to requests to review were e-mail overload and indecision about whether to take on the review. Recognition for service was the most recommended suggestion offered to motivate reviewers to agree to take on more manuscripts. On the whole, reviewers feel a strong sense of duty to review manuscripts. However, time constraints, poor fit, and lack of recognition are roadblocks to agreeing.

同行评审过程是科学研究的必要，劳动密集型和不完善的要素。在批评家们发现的众多问题中，寻找愿意的审稿人对期刊编辑而言可能是一项艰巨的任务，并且被公认为是阻碍出版过程的主要因素之一。为了更好地理解和服务于健康交流审稿人，我们对他们进行了调查，并询问了他们审稿的动机，包括为何他们同意，拒绝或不考虑审稿邀请。根据380位审稿人的回复，同意审稿的最有说服力的原因反映了其致力于提供学术服务和对期刊的忠诚度。选择拒绝审查的主要原因包括时间不足和评估提交意见的专业知识不足。未能回复审阅请求的主要原因是电子邮件超载以及对是否进行审阅的犹豫不决。对于服务的认可是最受推荐的建议，可以激发审稿人同意接受更多的手稿。总体而言，审稿人对审稿有强烈的责任感。但是，时间紧迫，适应性差，