Q&A Forum

Basics of Peer Review

Q: Why should I select preferred reviewers and how should I do it?

Detailed Question -

My journal has asked me to provide the names of at least three preferred reviewers. What is this system? How should I select preferred reviewers?

Asked on Mar 14, 2026

Answer

Follow this Question

2 Answer to this question

Answer: Some journals make it mandatory for the authors to suggest reviewers, while for other journals, it is optional. Whatever be the case, suggesting reviewers generally works to your advantage. These are some of the reasons why journals ask for suggested reviewers:

Journals are always short of reviewers. Often, the review process is lengthened because journals do not find suitable reviewers. Providing a list of suggested or preferred reviewers will definitely quicken the process.
Sometimes, the reviewers that journals assign may not be qualified in the particular subject area that your paper deals with, or may have biased views about your study. Such reviewers might give negative comments for your paper. So it is always better to give a list of preferred reviewers.

How to Choose Recommended Reviewers for Your Journal Submission

Criterion	What to look for	Do	Avoid
Subject expertise	Researchers who have published in your topic area within the last 5 years	Search your paper's own reference list. Cited authors are natural candidates	Generalists with no direct overlap to your specific methods or topic
Career stage	Mix of established PIs and active early-career researchers	Include postdocs or junior faculty publishing actively. They are often available and thorough	Only listing famous senior scientists who may be too busy to respond
Geographic diversity	Reviewers from different countries and research traditions	Broaden beyond your immediate academic circle or country	Listing only colleagues from your own institution or region
Conflicts of interest	No personal, financial, or competitive conflict with your work	Check co-authorship history: 3–5 years of collaboration is typically the cutoff	Suggesting collaborators, mentors, students, or close friends
Active publishing	Currently publishing research; this signals engagement with the field	Verify via Google Scholar or ORCID that they have recent output	Retired or inactive researchers unlikely to accept review requests
Number to suggest	Most journals ask for 3–6 suggested reviewers	Provide the maximum allowed: it gives editors more flexibility	Fewer than requested: it may delay the review process
Contact details	Current institutional email, not personal or old addresses	Include full name, affiliation, and a brief reason for each reviewer	Submitting names without verifying emails are current and reachable
Competing groups	Competing labs that would give a critical but fair read	A well-chosen competitor can strengthen credibility if they approve the work	Direct adversaries in ongoing disputes or patent competition
Opposed reviewers	Some journals allow you to request specific exclusions	Exclude with a concise, professional reason (e.g., based at an institute competing with yours for grants)	Abusing the exclusion list: too many looks defensive to editors
Where to find names	PubMed, Semantic Scholar, journal mastheads, conference programs	Use your reference list, related reviews, and editorial board members as a starting point	Suggesting someone only because they are famous; relevance matters more

Here's a comprehensive table covering the key criteria for selecting recommended reviewers. A few takeaways worth highlighting:

Your reference list is your best starting point: anyone you cited is already demonstrably relevant to your work. Run through the 10–20 most closely related papers and note the corresponding authors.
Avoid the "famous name" trap: senior researchers receive dozens of review requests and may decline or provide cursory reviews. Active mid-career researchers often write the most thorough reviews.
Be strategic about exclusions: most journals allow you to oppose specific reviewers. Use this sparingly and always give a neutral, professional reason (e.g., "has a directly competing preprint on this topic"), not a personal grievance.