Acting as a reviewer is considered a substantial part of the role-bundle of the academic profession (quality assurance (QA) and quality enhancement (QE) role). Research literature about peer review, for example, for journals and grants, shows that acting as a peer reviewer adds to an academic’s reputation. However, little is known about academics’ motivation to act as reviewers. Based on self-determination theory, the multidimensional work motivation scale (Gagné et al. 2015) is used for a survey of German professors acting as reviewers. The results of factor analysis show no intrinsic motivation to act as a reviewer in accreditation and evaluation procedures. Presumably, due to socialization effects, identified motivation among professors is higher compared to introjected motivation or to extrinsic motivation. A preference for HEI leadership/management predicts identified motivation to act as a reviewer, but a preference for teaching does not. Overall, the results suggest that professors acting as peer reviewers in accreditation and evaluation procedures accept the ambivalence of being self-determined in exercising the QA and QE professional role and of involuntarily being a management tool for higher education governance. The findings suggest that peer reviewing – also of research – is based on identified (and introjected) and not intrinsic motivation, for example, socialized acceptance of journal peer review as the best or most suitable mechanism of QA and QE.

担任审阅者被认为是学术职业角色捆绑的重要组成部分（质量保证（QA）和质量增强（QE）角色）。有关同行评审的研究文献，例如期刊和补助金，显示出担任同行评审员可以提高学者的声誉。但是，对于学者充当审稿人的动机知之甚少。基于自我决定理论，多维工作动机量表（Gagné等人，2015）用于对德国教授担任审稿人的调查。因子分析的结果表明，没有任何内在动机去担任评审和评估程序中的审稿人。据推测，由于社会化的影响，与引入的动机或外部动机相比，在教授中确定的动机更高。对HEI领导/管理的偏爱会预测已确定的充当审阅者的动机，但对教学的偏爱则不会。总体而言，结果表明，在认证和评估程序中担任同行评审的教授接受了在行使质量保证和质量保证专业角色时自立的信念，并自愿成为高等教育管理的管理工具。研究结果表明，同行评审（也是研究）是基于已识别（和引入）的内在动机，而不是基于内在动机，例如，社会接受期刊同行评审是质量保证和质量保证的最佳或最合适的机制。结果表明，在认证和评估程序中担任同行评审的教授接受了在行使质量保证和质量保证专业角色时自立的信念，并自愿成为高等教育管理的管理工具。研究结果表明，同行评审（也是研究）是基于已识别（和引入）的内在动机，而不是基于内在动机，例如，社会接受期刊同行评审是质量保证和质量保证的最佳或最合适的机制。结果表明，在认证和评估程序中担任同行评审的教授接受了在行使质量保证和质量保证专业角色时自立的信念，并自愿成为高等教育管理的管理工具。研究结果表明，同行评审（也是研究）是基于已识别（和引入）的内在动机，而不是基于内在动机，例如，社会接受期刊同行评审是质量保证和质量保证的最佳或最合适的机制。