Pick independent experts with matching methods, no conflicts, verified identities, and fit—never close collaborators, advisers, or direct rivals.
Editors often ask authors to suggest reviewers. A good list speeds decisions, improves fit, and signals that you understand your field. A careless list slows all steps and raises red flags. This guide walks you through clean, ethical choices for medical journals, so your paper meets the right eyes today. Editors still choose who reviews; your role is to propose solid options and avoid pitfalls.
Choosing Suggested Reviewers For A Medical Journal: Step-By-Step
Map The Scope
Start with the science. Write a one-line summary of your work that names the disease area, study design, methods, and primary outcome. Then list three to five subtopics or techniques that define the paper. Your reviewer map should match that scope, not fame alone.
Match Methods And Topic
If your trial uses Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and propensity scoring, you need readers fluent in both. Bench work that uses CRISPR screens and flow cytometry calls for a different mix. Pick people who publish on those exact methods and in your disease context.
Check Independence And Conflicts
Medical journals want reviewers who can judge design, statistics, and domain claims. A biostatistician for analysis, a clinician for external validity, and a basic scientist for mechanism can form a strong trio. Mixing roles avoids blind spots.
Confirm Identity And Email
Exclude recent coauthors, thesis advisers, mentees, lab mates, and grant partners. Avoid your current institution and recent former employers. Skip anyone with financial ties to the intervention or the primary comparator. If a relationship could sway judgment, do not propose the person.
| Criterion | What To Check | Quick Actions |
|---|---|---|
| Independence | No coauthorships, mentorship, or grants in 3 years | Search PubMed, CVs, and funding pages |
| Institution | Different department and campus from your team | Check current affiliation pages |
| Financial ties | No paid links to your drug, device, or assay | Scan disclosures and trial registries |
| Methods fit | Direct experience with your design or assay | Match to recent methods papers |
| Disease fit | Active publishing in your clinical area | Check last 3–5 years on PubMed |
| Identity | Clear profile and institutional email | Confirm ORCID and lab pages |
| Diversity | Mix of regions, institutions, and stages | Include at least one early-career name |
| Load | Not overloaded with dozens of reviews this year | Look for editorial notes or public pledges |
Re-check Identity And Email
Fraudulent reviewer identities have led to retractions across many publishers. Propose people with a clear track record, an institutional email, an open ORCID, and a public profile that matches their field. Free webmail can be legitimate, but an .edu, .ac, or hospital domain is safer.
Balance Location And Career Stage
Editors value range. Include names from more than one country and institution. Add at least one early-career researcher who has solid publications in the niche. Balance senior voice with fresh eyes.
How To Pick Reviewers For A Medical Journal Submission
Use search tools that reflect medical publishing. PubMed and Web of Science show who writes on your exact terms. Open several recent articles near your topic and scan the authors and the reference lists. Shortlist people who appear across multiple sources.
Check recency. A reviewer who last published on this topic a decade ago may not track current standards. Favor authors with papers in the past three to five years that match your design or assay.
Look for fit beyond search terms. Does the person work with similar patient populations, datasets, or models? Do they write in the same journal family? Those signals raise the chance of a focused review.
What To Share With The Journal
Most systems ask for a full name, affiliation, email, and a short reason. Craft one-sentence justifications that cite method or niche fit, not friendship or status. Add ORCID iDs when available. Do not contact candidates in advance unless a journal explicitly invites that step.
Ethics And Policy Signals You Should Know
Peer review rests on neutrality and transparency. Leading bodies outline clear standards: conflicts must be declared, reviewer identities must be genuine, and confidential material stays confidential. Many publishers also warn against agencies that supply sham identities.
Smart Ways To Find Qualified Names
Scan who has cited your prior papers on the topic. Search conference programs for your disease area and method; match speakers to recent publications. Use ORCID to confirm identity and track name variants. Check hospital or institution pages for current roles and email domains.
Scan editorial board lists only as a map of the field, not a shopping list. Many journals do not allow their editors to review regular submissions. If a field is small, lean toward adjacent specialties that share methods.
What To Avoid When Suggesting Reviewers
Do not nominate close collaborators, trainees, mentors, lab mates, or grant partners from the last three years. Do not pick people from your own department or those with a direct financial stake. Do not submit generic Gmail-only identities without any public profile. Do not game the process by building a friendly circle; editors notice patterns.
Template: One-Line Justifications You Can Adapt
- “Dr. Lin is a thoracic oncologist who publishes randomized trials using the same PD-1 dosing schedule and biomarker panel.”
- “Prof. Mehta develops propensity-score methods for observational cardiology cohorts and has three recent papers on treatment effect bias.”
- “Dr. Ortiz runs a CRISPR-screening core and co-authored two papers on the exact knockout strategy used here.”
- “Dr. Khan is an early-career nephrologist with recent ICU AKI trials that mirror our patient population.”
- “Prof. Bianchi chairs a hospital ethics committee and writes on consent in emergency research, which is central to this study.”
Second-Pass Filters Before You Submit
Reread your list for balance: topic fit, methods fit, independence, and identity checks. Remove anyone with even a hint of a tie to your team. Confirm that at least one name can speak to statistics and one to clinical relevance.
Trim to three to five strong options unless the portal asks for more. Add a short note to the editor in your submission note that you are fine with different selections if they see a better fit.
When You Should Flag Non-Preferred Reviewers
Most journals allow you to list people you prefer to exclude. Use that sparingly and only for specific reasons: direct competitors on the same dataset, past disputes, or known conflicts. Never build a long blacklist; it can look tactical.
Common Questions Authors Ask Themselves
Should you suggest a famous name? Only if the fit is precise. A mid-career researcher who lives in your niche will likely give sharper feedback than a broad leader with limited time.
Is industry experience a problem? Not by default. It becomes one when funding, patents, or employment connect to your intervention or comparator. When in doubt, leave the person off the list.
Can you repeat names across submissions? Yes, when the fit stays true and no conflicts arise. Still, rotate across projects so the burden does not fall on a small circle.
Sample Submission Note Line For Suggested Reviewers
We recommend the reviewers below for their direct expertise in our study’s design and topic. Each has no recent collaboration or shared funding with our group and uses the same methods in current work.
| Red Flag | Why It Matters | Safer Move |
|---|---|---|
| Recent coauthor (≤3 years) | Bias risk and perception of favoritism | Pick a neutral expert in the same niche |
| Same department | Local ties and shared incentives | Choose a different institution |
| Grant partner | Shared funding and outcomes | Find a peer with similar methods elsewhere |
| Paid adviser to sponsor | Financial stake in the result | Select an unaffiliated specialist |
| Webmail-only identity with no profile | Identity doubts and fake-review risk | Prefer institutional domains or verified ORCID |
| Direct market rival on your dataset | Race to priority and pressure to delay | Offer a capable adjacent group |
Final Checklist You Can Run In Five Minutes
- Each reviewer matches a method and the disease area.
- No recent coauthorships, mentorship ties, grants, or shared institutions.
- Institutional emails or verified ORCID links are available.
- Geographic and institutional mix is present.
- At least one reviewer handles statistics; at least one handles clinical context.
- One-line justifications cite fit, not status or personal ties.
How Many Names To Suggest And Why
Most portals ask for three to five names. Offer at least three with distinct strengths so the editor can build a balanced panel. If the journal requests more, add two alternates who use the same methods from different centers.
More is not always better. Long lists with thin justifications look like name dumps. Short, focused lists tell the editor you did the homework and respect their time.
Writing Clean Justifications That Editors Can Scan
A strong line names the method or niche, cites a recent paper, and states independence. It avoids titles, awards, or personal ties. Keep it to twenty words when possible, so busy editors can move quickly.
Anatomy Of A Strong Line
Method or niche → recent proof → independence. Sample: “Dr. Iyer leads multicenter RCTs on insulin titration; no shared funding, same assay family as ours.”
Mistakes That Trigger Delays
- Sending only senior names with broad scope and little method overlap.
- Recommending people with recent shared grants or conference abstracts.
- Using outdated emails that bounce in the first invite round.
- Providing descriptions that read like endorsements, not reasons.
- Submitting names from a single country or a single hospital system.
- Copy-pasting the same justification across all candidates.
Edge Cases You May Meet
- A small subfield with heavy collaboration networks: lean toward method experts in nearby fields who share tools, not coauthors.
- A trial that spans multiple specialties: split reviewers by specialty and add one biostatistician to bridge views.
- Industry-sponsored studies: avoid paid advisers to the sponsor and name independent clinicians with related trials.
- Multi-site datasets: skip investigators from sites that supplied your data unless the editor asks for them.
- Preprints and rapid reviews: prioritize people with recent, visible work on the same assay, and institutional emails.
Where Author Suggestions Add Real Value
Editors do not know all niches. Your view of subdiscipline communities helps them find sharp readers. Good suggestions cut invite rounds and raise the chance that comments speak to the exact claims you make.
That said, suggestions are never binding. If the editor selects different people, be open to that mix. Fresh eyes often spot issues your field overlooks.
Journal Portal Tips That Save Time
Keep a short document with candidate names, roles, emails, links, and one-line reasons. Update it after each project so you can paste cleanly into forms. Store ORCID links next to names to simplify identity checks.
When a portal allows a note to the editor about reviewers, write one sentence that frames your choices. Point to methods and independence, not status.
What Editors Often Prefer To See
Balanced panels. One statistics voice, one domain clinician, one lab or data specialist. Clear reasons that tie each name to a method or dataset. Accurate contact details tied to an institution.
Calm tone. No pressure to pick your list. No hints that you asked anyone to expect an invite. Clean separation between suggested and non-preferred names.
Why Identity Checks Matter
Past cases show that sham reviewer accounts can slip in when contacts use unverified email details and thin profiles. Public identifiers and institutional domains reduce that risk and protect your submission.
Putting It All Together
Build a tight map of methods and topic, generate a diverse list of specialists who fit that map, check conflicts and identity, and write crisp reasons. That package shows editors you respect the process and the science.
For ethics and conflict rules, see the COPE guidelines for reviewers, the ICMJE recommendations on relationships and activities, and Springer Nature’s note about independence when authors suggest reviewers.
Submit strong suggestions that match the journal and the methods, so editors can move briskly and fair forward.