Improving science through improved acknowledgment of reviewers

Quantifying and attributing credit for the production of new knowledge is an increasingly pervasive aspect of scientific culture (Tscharntke et al. 2007" Fischer et al. 2012). Individual researchers are under sustained pressure from research institutions to continually increase the number of peer-reviewed scientific publications they produce to justify their professional affiliation and potential to source future research funding. Such pressure to intensify research output has stimulated debate over the relative importance of the quantity and quality of new knowledge in scientific performance (Donaldson & Cooke 2014). Additionally, it encourages behaviors in researchers that are increasingly driven by a perceived need to compete against peers to sustain and justify individual careers (Tedesco 2011" Halme et al. 2012" Kaushal & Jeschke 2013).