Selecting reviewers is more than a form field. The right names speed fair feedback and reduce back-and-forth. This guide shows how to build a reviewer list editors can use, avoid conflicts, and write a short note that makes their job easier. Editors notice careful preparation.
Choosing Reviewers For A Medical Manuscript: Practical Steps
Start With The Manuscript Map
Break your study into parts. Topic, design, methods, data type, setting, and patient group. From these, make three short bullets in your notes: domain expertise, method expertise, and context expertise. A reviewer can handle one or more lanes; you do not need a unicorn who handles all.
Build A Neutral Longlist
Scan the most recent citations in your paper. Add authors who are active on the topic yet not tied to your lab. Search PubMed or your field’s index for the core keywords plus the main method. Add names you see across multiple recent papers. Pull a few candidates from adjacent subfields if the method match is strong.
Check signals that help editors: an institutional profile, an ORCID iD, and recent peer-reviewed work. Do not email candidates. You only suggest; the journal contacts them.
Check For Bias And Conflicts
Screen the longlist against common risks. Recent co-authorship, shared grants, shared affiliations, close mentorship ties, or business links. Align with formal advice such as the ICMJE peer-review guidance and COPE peer review ethics. If a name sits close to a boundary, pick another.
Reviewer Fit Scorecard
| Criterion | What Good Looks Like | Quick Checks |
|---|---|---|
| Domain | Publishes on the core question in the last 3–5 years | PubMed profile; recent first/last-author paper |
| Method | Hands-on with your primary method or analysis | Methods section in recent work; code or protocol link |
| Context | Understands the setting or patient group | Trial site or registry entry; clinic affiliation |
| Independence | No tight ties to authors or funders | No shared grants or recent co-authorship |
| Professional conduct | Clear record of fair peer review | Editorial board bio; public reviewer badges if any |
Where To Find Strong Candidates
Reference lists are a start, yet they tend to repeat the same names. Add trial registries for the disease area and scan investigator lists. Check conference programs for session chairs and abstract reviewers. Check preprint servers and note thoughtful public comments. Each of these pools surfaces active scholars who engage with new work.
Professional societies often publish member directories or special interest group committees. Those rosters can reveal method leads or clinicians who run large programs. A short web search of “topic + method + site:edu” often finds lab pages with full contact details.
Handle Interdisciplinary Manuscripts
Split needs by layer. One reviewer for the clinical question, one for the analytic engine, and one for the device or lab step, if present. Name the lane for each person in your editor letter so editors see the plan.
Journal-Specific Quirks
Submission portals differ. Some require ORCID for suggested reviewers. Some limit free-mail accounts. Others ask for a short sentence on fit. Draft once in your spreadsheet, then paste to fit each portal. This reduces typos and missing fields.
How To Select Reviewers For Your Medical Paper
Balance Expertise And Methodology
A strong pair mixes one subject-matter specialist with one methods expert. Many papers benefit from a biostatistician or data scientist who can stress-test the analysis. For trials, add a clinician who treats the target patients; for lab work, a technique lead makes sense.
Spread The Net
Avoid a panel of close collaborators from one hub. Mix regions, institutions, and career stages. This widens perspectives and lowers scheduling risk. Editors value balanced slates that do not read like one school’s roster.
Mind Workload And Responsiveness
Recent activity matters. Someone who published three papers last month may be busy, but an active profile beats a name that has not published for years. Look for clear contact details and a stable affiliation. That keeps turnaround brisk.
Use Reporting Standards To Guide Picks
Match reviewer skills to the reporting standard your study follows. For clinical trials, CONSORT; for observational work, STROBE; for diagnostics, STARD; for reviews, PRISMA. The EQUATOR guideline finder helps you line up checklists and needed skills.
Conflict Checks That Keep Editors Comfortable
Common Red Flags
- Co-authored with any author in the last 36 months
- Same department or research center now or within 36 months
- Active grant, consultancy, or patent with an author or funder
- Direct competitor on an ongoing trial with overlapping endpoints
- Public disputes or strong prior statements about your result
Policies vary by journal. Many follow lines similar to journal editor policies on suggesting and excluding referees. When in doubt, flag the relationship in your note to the editor and do not nominate.
Conflict Scenarios And Safer Calls
| Scenario | Risk | Safer Option |
|---|---|---|
| Former mentor within 5 years | Perceived bias | Pick a senior in the same field with no prior ties |
| Shared multi-site trial | Shared stakes | Choose a similar trial team in a different network |
| Recent co-inventor on a patent | Financial link | Exclude and state the link for transparency |
| Industry consultant on your device | Commercial interest | Suggest a consultant for a competing device, or none |
| Spouse or close relative in field | Personal tie | Do not nominate; add to opposed list |
Vetting Reviewers: Identity And Activity
Journal teams watch for fake identities. So should you. Prefer institutional emails over throwaway domains. Cross-check name, affiliation, and email across the institutional page, ORCID, and a recent paper. If a candidate lists only a generic email and no profile, move on.
Scan recent outputs. Two to five papers in the last three years in the topic or method lane signal freshness. Conference abstracts and preprints count, but peer-reviewed work carries more weight. Editorial roles can help, yet do not replace hands-on research.
Some journals publish reviewer recognition. If you see public reviewer credits in your field, that can reassure editors that a candidate has delivered solid reviews in the past.
Practical Tips For Tight Fields
When Everyone Knows Everyone
Small subspecialties can make independence tricky. Widen geography and pick method experts who publish on similar designs in adjacent diseases. If the pool is still thin, be open about the ties and give the editor a few options with different types of links. A clear note signals care, not gaming.
When Your Work Competes With A Live Trial
Direct competitors often have strong views. Skip them. Pick reviewers with similar skills but no stake in your outcome. Trial statisticians and methods leads from neutral networks keep the review sharp without entanglements.
When Code Or Data Are Central
If the main claim rests on code or a dataset, nominate at least one person who reads code daily or curates data for a living. Point to your repository and version. Mention any reproducibility checks you already ran. That helps the editor match skills to the task.
Ethics And Clear Communication
Stay Within The Lines
Do not ask anyone to review or pre-approve your paper outside the journal channel. Do not offer gifts. Keep your list free of people who might gain from the outcome. The COPE peer review ethics page sets plain rules that work across journals.
Be Transparent About Past Interactions
If a candidate once collaborated far in the past, you can note the year and context. If a candidate trained in your department a decade ago without direct work with you, say so. Short, factual context is better than silence when a tie might surface.
Respect Privacy
Use emails that people list on institutional pages. Do not share personal numbers or private addresses. If a profile lists only a web form, paste the link for the editor and leave the email field blank if the system allows it.
Role-Based Pairings That Work
Clinical Trial
One clinician who runs trials in the same phase, one statistician with hands-on experience in randomization and missing data, and one disease biologist if there is a translational angle. If sample size or adaptive rules are complex, add a methods specialist as the third pick.
Diagnostic Accuracy Study
Nominate a reader who publishes on ROC curves and calibration, a clinician who orders the test in daily care, and, where relevant, a lab lead who validates assays. This blend speaks to both math and real-world use.
Systematic Review Or Meta-analysis
Pick one reviewer known for careful search methods, one for bias assessment tools, and one with deep domain knowledge. Link to your protocol and search string to make screening easier.
Bench To Bedside Work
Pair a technique expert with a clinician who can judge translational claims. If the paper leans on animal models, include someone who publishes on model validity for the disease in question.
Submitting And Tracking
Keep a simple spreadsheet. Columns for name, email, institution, ORCID, domain, method, notes, date suggested, and outcome. This reduces typing errors and helps you refresh lists for the next paper. Update entries when people move or change roles.
After submission, resist the urge to contact any reviewer. All communication runs through the journal. If months pass, write the editor briefly and ask if they need alternative names. Offer one or two fresh options that meet the same fit rules.
Crafting Reviewer Suggestions Editors Can Use
What To Include For Each Name
Give a complete, clean block for each person. Full name, degree, role, institution, country, institutional email, ORCID iD, and one line on fit. Add one or two recent, relevant papers as hyperlinks. Keep the tone neutral and factual. Editors value clean, complete cards and links.
Reviewer 1 Name: Dr Alex Rivera, MD, PhD Role & Affiliation: Associate Professor of Cardiology, City University Hospital, USA Email: alex.rivera@cuh.edu ORCID: 0000-0002-1234-5678 Fit: Leads phase II heart-failure trials and published on adaptive randomization. Recent work: Rivera A et al. J Card Fail 2024;28:123-131. https://doi.org/xx.xxxx/xxxx
Repeat for two to four names. Many journals cap suggestions at three to five. Do not paste full CVs. Short, verifiable facts beat long bios.
How Many To Propose
Offer at least two names more than the journal’s minimum, in case of declines. Mix skill sets as described earlier. If the journal asks for opposed reviewers, give a short list with brief reasons such as “recent co-authorship” or “direct commercial link.” Keep it professional.
Polite Opposed Reviewer List
Use the opposed field sparingly. Name the person and state a short, factual reason. No long stories. Editors may ignore the request, yet a crisp note helps them steer clear of obvious issues.
Opposed reviewer: Dr Jamie Chen — recent co-authorship on SGLT2 trial (2023). Opposed reviewer: Prof Marta Silva — advisor to sponsor; device overlaps with ours.
Template: Reviewer Note To The Editor
Paste a short note in the editor letter. Keep it crisp and factual.
Dear Editor, We propose the reviewers below for manuscript XXXXX. 1) Dr Alex Rivera, MD, PhD — City University Hospital, USA — alex.rivera@cuh.edu — ORCID 0000-0002-1234-5678. Fit: Phase II heart-failure trials; adaptive designs. 2) Dr Samina Qureshi, MBBS, MPH — National Heart Centre, Singapore — samina.qureshi@nhc.sg — ORCID 0000-0003-9876-5432. Fit: Registry-based outcomes; propensity methods. 3) Prof Luca Ferraro, PhD — University of Turin, Italy — luca.ferraro@unito.it — ORCID 0000-0001-2222-3333. Fit: Bayesian meta-analysis; trial sequential methods. We have not contacted these individuals. We confirm no recent co-authorship, shared grants, or other ties. Opposed reviewer: Dr Jamie Chen due to recent joint work (2023). Sincerely, The authors
Common Mistakes That Delay Review
- Listing friends or recent collaborators
- Suggesting only hyper-specialists with the same narrow lens
- Using private emails when a stable institutional email exists
- Copying full bios instead of one-line fits and links
- Nominating people who publicly stated a fixed stance on your result
- Submitting fewer names than the system requests
- Leaving out ORCID or recent papers that confirm expertise
Follow the steps above and your suggestions will read clean, fair, and ready to use. That helps editors move your paper to decision without extra loops.