What Editors Check Before Inviting A Reviewer
Editors need subject fit, a clean conflict history, and a track record that matches the topic. They scan recent papers, grants, and talks. They weigh recency of work, depth in the subfield, and whether the reviewer can deliver on time. They also look for a valid work email or an ORCID iD that ties the person to a stable identity.
Strong reviewer pools guard against bias. That means a mix of regions, genders, and career stages where possible. Balance beats a tiny inner circle that all cite one another. Your suggestions help the editor build that mix, so aim for breadth along with expertise.
Finding Reviewers For My Paper: Smart Places To Start
Mine Your Reference List
Start with the most recent and central citations you used. Pick authors who published in the same niche within the last three to five years and who do not share close ties with you. Favor first or last authors, since they often lead the work. Skip anyone you thanked in the acknowledgments.
Use Scholarly Databases Wisely
Search topic strings and filter by year to surface active voices. Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and OpenAlex can all help. Check profile pages to confirm current affiliations, recent output, and research keywords. Two or three solid matches per area of your paper beats a random list.
Lean On ORCID Signals
Many researchers link publications, grants, and reviews to their ORCID iD. That record helps you confirm identity, spot homonyms, and locate a stable email or institutional page. When you propose reviewers, include their ORCID if available.
Conference Programs And Preprints
Scan recent symposia, workshops, and preprint feeds in your area. Speakers and preprint authors often sit at the frontier of a topic and can assess new work with nuance. Match subtopics to your sections. Avoid anyone who presented joint work with you or your coauthors.
Reviewer Sourcing Channels At A Glance
| Channel | What To Look For | Quick Triage |
|---|---|---|
| Reference List | Recent, central papers in your niche | Exclude coauthors, mentors, students, or lab mates |
| Scholarly Indexes | Active profiles, clear keywords, steady output | Favor work email; avoid generic inboxes |
| ORCID Profiles | Linked outputs and grants; stable IDs | Record the ORCID and current affiliation |
| Conference Programs | Invited talks, session chairs, workshop leads | Cross-check ties to you and your coauthors |
| Preprint Servers | Recent submissions in your subfield | Check if the author is mid-study on a close topic |
| Grant Panels | Names on public review rosters | Ensure no active grant overlap with your team |
Ethics: Who You Should Not Suggest
Skip close collaborators, recent coauthors, current or recent lab mates, advisors, or students. Avoid anyone at your home institution or a partner site on your project. Do not nominate people with direct financial stakes in your results. These conditions can skew a verdict and may breach journal policy.
Many journals echo COPE’s peer reviewer guidelines and require clear conflict statements. Large publishers also outline expectations around competing interests, as seen in Nature’s competing interests policy. Align your list with those norms and add a short note on how you screened for ties clearly.
How To Vet A Potential Reviewer
Check Expertise And Recency
Scan the last three to five years of output. A reviewer who stopped publishing in the area may miss current context. Read titles and abstracts to confirm a match on methods and data types. When your paper blends domains, pair reviewers so that each one handles a slice where they shine.
Screen For Conflicts And Bias
Search for joint papers with you or your coauthors. Compare affiliations carefully across the author list and the candidate. If you share funding or a current grant panel with the candidate, that can be a conflict. Spell out any faint ties in the submission form so the editor can judge.
Verify Identity And Email
Follow the trail from a recent paper to an institutional page. Confirm a work email or a lab contact page that lists the same email. If the only email is a free webmail account, add one extra check such as an ORCID link or a department profile. Keep notes so you can show your checks if asked.
Write Strong Reviewer Suggestions
Journals often ask for a short rationale with each name. Be concise and specific. Mention the subtopic and a recent paper that proves fit. Add ORCID links when you have them and state that you have no ties beyond public citations.
Sample Text For The Reviewer Field
Name: Dr. Priya Raman (ORCID: 0000-0002-1234-5678) Affiliation: Dept. of Bioengineering, Riverdale University, USA Email: praman@riverdale.edu Rationale: Leads microfluidic single-cell assays; see Raman et al., Lab Chip 2024. Conflicts: No shared funding, appointments, or coauthorships with our team.
Ways To Find Reviewers For Your Manuscript Without Bias
Cast A Wider Net
Go beyond the top five labs. Add mid-career and early-career voices who publish solid work in your niche. Mix regions. Many journals invite balanced lists and may pick one name from your set and two from theirs.
Slice By Methods And Data
List candidates who map to your core methods: study design, statistics, measurement, and domain theory. A clear map helps the editor assign complementary readers. It also reduces the risk that one person tries to handle territory they do not know well.
Watch Workload And Speed
Busy lab heads can be slow. Senior postdocs and assistant professors often reply fast and bring sharp focus. Just check supervision norms in your field and confirm that the person has reviewed before, or at least has a strong record in the niche.
How Many Names To Provide
Unless the portal caps the list, three to six names is a good band. That gives room for balance across subtopics and regions. Add an equal list of opposed reviewers when the journal allows it, noting clear reasons such as direct competition or past disputes.
Emailing Candidates Before Submission
Do not send your manuscript or ask for comments. A brief note that you would like to list the person as a potential reviewer is fine in some communities. Keep it neutral, do not pitch, and never ask for a promise to accept. Many journals prefer no contact at all, so check the author guide first.
Field-Specific Tips That Work
Life Sciences
Scan recent issues of domain journals and method journals. Many wet-lab studies hinge on assays and models. One reviewer should master the assay; another should know the disease or system. For clinical work, add someone who reads study design and reporting checklists with care.
Physical Sciences
Match reviewers to instrumentation and theory. If your paper uses a new detector or beamline, include someone who runs that platform. For materials or astro, split one reviewer for modeling and one for measurement. That split keeps reviews precise and keeps scope creep in check.
Computer Science And Math
Sort by venue and subfield tags. For CS, check top conferences and lab pages for current codebases and benchmarks. Include one name who can read proofs or algorithmic bounds, and another who lives in the applied stack you used. For math, map reviewers to the exact class of objects or techniques.
Social Sciences And Humanities
Seek readers who know your data sources and the debate around them. Add at least one person with strong methods in survey design or causal inference if those appear in your study. When the work touches policy or archival sources, include a scholar who has direct experience with those archives or datasets.
Avoid Email Pitfalls
Do not mass-email a list of strangers. No CCs, no attachments, no hype. If you reach out for permission to list a name, keep it to three lines and send from an institutional email. Never promise benefits. Never imply that they will see the paper or that the editor must invite them.
Phishing is common in academia. Editors grow cautious when a suggestion comes with a webmail account and no public footprint. Your checks and clear notes help everyone steer clear of fake identities.
When The Editor Ignores Your List
It happens. Editors may already have a panel in mind or may see a conflict you missed. That is fine. Your job is to supply credible options and declare ties. If the reviews look off-topic or show clear bias, write a calm, factual response letter for the decision stage. Point to the gaps and propose fresh names for a round two read.
If You Spot Peer Review Manipulation
Rare patterns include fake emails, third-party agencies, and networks that trade favors. If you suspect anything odd, tell the editor privately and stick to facts you can verify, such as mismatched domains or bounced messages. Guidance from groups like COPE explains why journals check for these risks and how they respond.
What To Do When Your Field Is Small
Some niches have tight networks. In those cases, list the ties plainly and explain distance. You might say a person is at a different campus, has no joint funding, and has not coauthored with you in five years. Editors know small fields and can weigh that context.
Make Your Submission Form Work Harder
Fill every reviewer field with clean, consistent data. Include full names, accents where needed, current titles, departments, and a work email. Paste the ORCID link. Add a one-line topic tag for each name such as “causal inference” or “alpine hydrology.” These small touches help busy editors.
Template: Request To List Someone As A Potential Reviewer
Subject: Permission to list you as a potential reviewer Dear Dr. Raman, I am submitting a manuscript on microfluidic single-cell assays to Journal X. May I list you as a potential reviewer? The journal invites authors to suggest names. I will not send the manuscript, and there is no expectation to accept any invite. Best regards, Your Name Affiliation
Prevent Delays After You Submit
Keep your contact list tidy in case the editor needs extra names. If the portal lets you update your suggestions during revision, refresh the list with new profiles from recent issues. When the journal asks for opposed reviewers, keep the tone factual and brief. Keep a dated log of every check performed.
Link Your Own Identity
Create or update your ORCID iD and link it in the author profile. Editors use it to verify identities and find past work. It also prevents mix-ups with namesakes, which reduces misfires during reviewer searches.
Stay Aligned With Journal Policy
Each journal has a slightly different stance on reviewer suggestions, opposed lists, and contact rules. Read the author guide and match your approach to that venue. Many policies draw on COPE guidance and publisher rules on competing interests, so the same basic logic tends to apply across houses.
Second Table: Conflict Signals And Actions
| Scenario | What It Means | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Same Institution | Institutional tie may sway judgment | Do not suggest; pick a different campus |
| Recent Coauthorship | Shared papers in the last three years | Exclude and note the tie in the portal |
| Shared Grant Or Patent | Financial interest or joint IP | Exclude; add a brief note for the editor |
| Ongoing Collaboration | Active project or data sharing | Exclude; pick an independent lab |
| Personal Dispute | Documented history that breaks trust | Use the opposed list with a short reason |
Fast Checklist Before You Hit Submit
- Three to six names that map to distinct subtopics
- No recent coauthorships, shared grants, or home-institution ties
- Work emails and, when possible, ORCID links
- One-line rationales tied to your sections
- A short opposed list with factual reasons
- Clean formatting and consistent name spelling
Closing Notes
Your goal is a fair, efficient review that matches experts to sections of your work. Thoughtful suggestions speed that match, reduce conflict risk, and save editors time. Keep records of your checks, use stable identifiers, and write clear rationales. That’s how you build trust and get your paper a strong, timely read today.