Scientific publishing is unique in the marketplace of ideas. It promotes what is true and meaningful over what is popular or profitable. Peer review is key. But peer review is slow, noisy and already buckling under the strain of AI-generated bullshit. One obvious flaw with the current system of scientific peer review is that it is unincentivised. Here I present findings from the prior literature and some new findings from an Open Philantropy-funded project that investigates the role of non-monetary incentives in promoting timely and quality peer review. These findings – which demonstrate the importance of choice architecture in determining the quality of peer review – speak to a role for behavioural insights in tweaking the peer review process. I also outline some research that I will be conducting with two RAs on the project, Morgan Reed and Paola Goggi. The deliverable from this project is a field experiment with a journal and so I look forward to a lively conversation on what that might look like.