Yes. Start with your references, use journal and society databases, search ORCID, and invite conflict-free experts with a concise, personalized email.
Editors and conference chairs look for fast, fair peer review. Authors are often asked to suggest names as part of a submission. Doing this well protects your paper, speeds decisions, and builds trust. This guide lays out practical ways to spot qualified reviewers, check for conflicts, and send invites that get a reply. No tricks. Repeatable steps grounded in publishing norms.
Journals differ in how they select reviewers. Some pick all names internally. Others invite authors to suggest a few candidates or list exclusions. Even when suggestions are optional, a strong list helps the editor move quickly and find the right mix. The steps below work for lab science, clinical work, engineering, social science, and policy studies.
Finding Peer Reviewers For Your Manuscript: Start Here
Begin with the science, not the contact list. Write three to five topic tags that capture the core methods, organisms, data types, or policy angles in the manuscript. Match those tags to people who publish on the same combination. Aim for a mix of senior and mid-career voices, with space for one fresh perspective.
Map The Topic Precisely
Turn the abstract into concrete tags. A good set blends the main question with the tools used. Write tags such as “Bayesian time-series,” “soil metagenomics,” or “cost-effectiveness in oncology.” These tags become search inputs across databases and conference sites. They also explain to an editor why each reviewer fits.
Define The Ideal Reviewer Profile
List the traits that matter. Depth with the core method, a record of peer-reviewed work in the past five years, and no direct links to the author group. Add teaching or clinical service when the paper has applied goals. When the paper is technically demanding, pick at least one person known for methods papers or open datasets.
Balance Seniority And Perspective
A panel that blends career stages gives richer feedback. Senior voices bring a field map and context. Mid-career reviewers often add sharp method checks. Early-career reviewers tend to read the text line by line and spot clarity gaps. A balanced set reduces blind spots.
Use the sources below to assemble a shortlist quickly. Each one reveals expertise from a different angle.
| Source | How To Use It | Watch-outs |
|---|---|---|
| Reference List In Your Paper | Scan recent, relevant citations; follow author names to current affiliations and recent work. | Exclude co-authors, advisors, close collaborators, and anyone with shared grants or datasets. |
| ORCID Registry | Search profiles for publications that match your tags; confirm emails and current positions. | Some profiles are sparse; always cross-check outputs and affiliations elsewhere. |
| Conference Programs | Filter last two years of agendas and abstracts in your field; note session chairs and speakers. | Avoid people who previewed your work in a closed review or mentoring setting. |
| Society Member Directories | Look up special-interest groups and committees aligned with your topic. | Member lists can lag; verify activity with recent publications. |
| Journal Databases | Search recent articles and reviews in your target journal and peer titles; map who publishes on the niche. | Skip anyone who published the submission’s pilot data or preprint with you. |
How To Identify Peer Reviewers And Invite Them
A clean process keeps editors confident and the review cycle moving. Work through the steps below and keep notes, since many systems ask for a short justification for each name.
Set Clear Criteria
Define what a suitable reviewer looks like for this manuscript: subject fit, method depth, and practical experience. Exclude current or recent collaborators, same-department colleagues, and anyone with a mentor-mentee tie. Remove names with business or legal ties to a funder, vendor, or litigant linked to the study.
Build A Shortlist Fast
Combine search tactics for speed and quality. Run topic strings in journal sites, Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar. Open ORCID profiles to confirm identity and recent output. Check lab pages and preprint servers for fresh work. Aim for six to ten names so the editor has room to choose.
Write Search Strings That Return The Right People
Combine your tags with Boolean operators and a short year range. Use title and abstract fields to find people publishing on the same slice of the field. Add NOT terms to screen out your lab, funder, or city when needed. Keep a spreadsheet of names, links, and notes.
Disambiguate Common Names
Names repeat across countries and fields. Match with middle initials, affiliations, and topic clusters. Use author IDs in ORCID, Web of Science, or Scopus to confirm identity. Check personal pages for headshots and group lists. If a name splits across two profiles, pick the one with the clearest match to your tags.
Explain Fit In One Line
Editors appreciate a crisp note next to each suggested name. Write one line such as “quantitative virology; recent paper on neutralization models” or “registries and health policy; leads a multicenter audit.” Keep the notes factual and neutral.
How Many Names To Suggest
When the form asks for three, aim to list four or five in case a person declines. If you send direct invites for a workshop or special issue, invite two to three times the number you need. Stagger sends over two days so the first round has a fair chance to accept.
Check For Conflicts
Conflicts fall into several buckets. Screen for these before you suggest a name or send an invite:
- Recent co-authorship, grant partnership, or shared datasets with any author.
- Same institution or department within the past three years.
- Family, mentorship, or supervisory ties.
- Paid advisory work, equity, or board roles tied to the study’s outcomes.
- Public disputes that might bias the review.
Draft A Tight Invite
Short and specific wins. State the title, give a one-line summary of the question, share the word count or pages, and the expected turnaround window. Add a single sentence on why the match makes sense. Offer an easy decline path. Keep it under 140 words.
Subject: Review invitation – “{title}”
Dear Dr. {last_name},
I’m handling a manuscript titled “{title}” on {one_line}. Your work on {expertise} aligns with the methods and scope. The file is {length} with an expected turnaround of {days} days. If you can review, I’ll send the file and instructions. If not, a quick decline or one alternate name helps a lot.
Thanks,
{sender}
Ethics And Journal Rules You Must Follow
Peer review relies on integrity. Use professional emails, never private email accounts scraped from PDFs. Do not suggest people who helped draft or edit the manuscript. Do not submit fake reviewers or spoofed identities. Many journals ask authors to enter suggested names with institutional emails and a rationale. Follow that format and be ready to certify that the people suggested have no conflicts and were not coached.
Never upload private contact lists to journal systems. Avoid personal webmail email accounts except when the person clearly uses one for research. Keep communication professional and free of pressure. If someone declines, do not push for reasons; just thank them and move on. When a journal bars authors from suggesting names, use the “conflicts to avoid” box.
For rule sets that many journals follow, see the COPE peer reviewer guidelines and the ICMJE recommendations. For identity checks and name matching, the ORCID registry is reliable.
Tools And Databases That Speed Up Reviewer Search
A few services can save time. Some are public; some sit behind library subscriptions. Use them to validate identities and find recent, topic-matched output.
Publisher tools can be helpful, yet they work best as a starting point. Always review each profile before you submit a name. Look for recent work that matches your tags, a stable affiliation, and a way to reach the person at work. If a tool proposes someone with a known tie to your study, remove that name.
| Tool Or Source | Best Use | Access |
|---|---|---|
| ORCID Registry | Search profiles to verify names, affiliations, and linked works; use it to disambiguate similar names. | Free |
| Web Of Science / Scopus | Rank authors by recent publications on your tags; drill into co-author networks to avoid conflicts. | Subscription |
| Publisher Reviewer Finders | Built-in tools in submission systems suggest reviewers based on manuscript metadata. | Editor access |
| Society Directories | Member rosters and SIG lists reveal active volunteers with niche expertise. | Member access |
Smart Ways To Widen The Net
Editors value breadth. Mix geography, career stage, and institution type. Add early-career researchers with expertise and strong methods papers. Invite people from teaching-focused campuses or applied labs when the topic benefits from practice insight. Rotate names so the same few experts are not overloaded.
Breadth also means hearing from varied sectors. Industry scientists, health system leads, and policy analysts can spot real-world gaps. Invite them when the paper claims applied impact. Use regional societies and national academies to reach areas that are under-represented in your field. Spread invitations across genders and regions to build a healthy reviewer pool.
Red Flags And Common Pitfalls
Avoid patterns that slow decisions or raise concerns. The list below comes from standard editorial checks.
Editors run basic checks on every suggestion. Patterns that hint at manipulation slow the process. Keep your list clean and mixed so it passes routine screening.
- Private email domains for suggested reviewers when a work email exists.
- Nominees with thin or unrelated publication records.
- A cluster of nominees from one lab, company, or country.
- Obvious reciprocal suggestions across friends or collaborators.
- Overlapping affiliations or grants with the author group.
Quick 10-Step Checklist
- Write three to five topic tags for the manuscript.
- List conflicts that rule someone out up front.
- Pull five to ten names from references, databases, and ORCID.
- Verify affiliations and recent output on official pages.
- Screen for co-authorships, grants, and institutional ties.
- Select two senior, two mid-career, and one rising name.
- Prepare a one-line rationale for each nominee.
- Collect work emails and add profiles or URLs where allowed.
- Send a compact, personal invite or enter names in the system.
- Track replies and offer alternates quickly when needed.
Timing, Follow-Ups, And Polite Reminders
Respect people’s time. When you send a direct invite, offer a clear deadline and a short window to accept. Send one reminder near the midpoint of the window and then move on if there is no reply. For special issues with fixed dates, state the copyedit schedule and any proof deadlines in your first note. Thank reviewers who decline and keep them on your list for a better-matched paper.
Fairness And Inclusion In Reviewer Choice
A strong reviewer pool reflects the breadth of the field. Track who you invite across regions, genders, and institution types. Invite people who publish in regional journals when their work fits the topic. Help newcomers by pairing a senior and an early-career name in your suggestions where the journal allows.
Privacy, Confidentiality, And Acknowledgments
Keep identities private unless the journal runs open peer review. Do not share manuscripts by email once a formal review is underway; use the system links. When a reviewer gives input before submission, ask if they want an acknowledgment line. Never add someone to acknowledgments or a reviewer list without consent.
Submission Forms And Notes Editors Appreciate
Submission portals often ask for notes that help the handling editor. Use that space to deliver facts. List each nominee with a work email, role, a link to a profile, and a one-line fit note tied to your tags. Mention any areas where a second reviewer would add balance, such as statistics, ethics, or field practice. State any exclusions that matter, like labs with shared grants or past co-authors. Keep the tone neutral and avoid superlatives. If the journal allows a submission note, add the same clarity: a summary of the question, the main method, and the kind of feedback that would help the editor reach a decision. Precise notes shorten back-and-forth, reduce guesswork, and make it easy for editors to match your work with the right readers. Include a preprint link if policy permits.