The results are in! Peer review relies on people giving their time. How often do we ask reviewers how the system should work for them? We’ve published the findings of the Pirevios reviewer survey, based on 200+ completed responses. Among those who responded: • 71% had considered stopping reviewing in the past year. • 58% named time demands as their main reason for declining a review. • 73% selected payment or compensation as one possible improvement. • 73% said they had never been asked how peer review should work. This was a self-selected survey, so these figures do not represent all reviewers. The full report includes detailed charts, written-response themes and methods: pirevios.com/survey-report The findings are helping shape what we’re building at Pirevios: a directory where reviewers can describe their specialities and availability, and say whether they are open to unpaid, paid or hybrid reviewing. Our aim is to help journals find suitable reviewers sooner, reduce invitations that do not fit, and give more reviewers a chance to contribute without repeatedly approaching the same people. Thank you to everyone who shared their experience. I’d welcome your thoughts on how we can make this genuinely useful for reviewers and journals. More about Pirevios: pirevios.com/ @mirvatalasnag @sbrugaletta @ncurzen @mmamas1973 @gbiondizoccai @AnilMakam @dr_yakupergun @EslamAbady33 @francisdeng @PTarantinoMD @ross_prager @LocasaleLab @DrNeilStone @drjohnm @DrDamluji @wisit661 @Hemida_MD @BrettSperryMD @docmartin22 @JadAbdelsattar @Azeem_Majeed @Dr_AmerZeidan @DrToddLee @doctorinigo @AmitGoyalMD @acorderofort @Elsayed_saidx @jtsaxon