Strong peer review lifts a paper. The right reader will test claims, spot gaps, and suggest fixes that raise clarity. The trick is finding experts who can give blunt, fair notes without any link to you.
This guide shows practical routes to build a clean reviewer list for journal submission. It draws on common ethics rules, such as COPE guidance, and standard journal workflows. You will map the field, shortlist names, screen for conflicts, and draft short rationales that help editors act fast.
Finding Reviewers For Your Article: First Steps
Start by sketching the ideal reviewer profile. Note three items: topic fit, method fit, and independence. Aim for a mix: career stages, institutions, and regions. Most journals ask for three to six names. Add a short reason for each pick and keep full contact details.
Before you begin, write a few search strings built from your title, methods, and search terms. Those strings drive every lookup that follows.
Reviewer Scouting Map
| Where To Look | How To Use It | Watch-Outs |
|---|---|---|
| Recent papers in your reference list | List last two years of authors on closely related work | Exclude any co-authors, mentors, or shared grants |
| Citation chains | Open who you cited, then who cites them | Avoid tight circles that all publish together |
| Google Scholar profiles | Scan topics and recent output | Outdated profiles or generic emails |
| ORCID records | Confirm identity and areas | Incomplete records or missing affiliations |
| Preprint servers | Check authors and commenters on close preprints | Preprints may reveal active collaborators |
| Conference programs | Search session chairs and speakers on your topic | Speakers from your own lab or grant network |
| Editorial boards | Find subject editors who may suggest peers | Don’t suggest the handling editor |
| Grant panel rosters | Reviewers with method depth | Check policy on recent panel ties |
| Professional societies | Use member directories and SIG lists | Industry ties that create perceived bias |
| Datasets and code repos | Identify maintainers with domain chops | Affiliation changes since the release |
| Trusted peer review guides | Align with publisher policy | Assume editors verify every detail |
Build A Targeted Shortlist
Work in passes. First, sweep the literature and extract names. Next, check overlap with your network to remove conflicts. Then grade fit. Keep notes on why each person suits the paper.
Use Databases The Smart Way
On Scholar, search your title terms, then sort by date. Open author pages and skim their last five items. On ORCID, confirm identity and affiliation, then cross-check with the lab page. Add a link to one recent paper that matches your method or dataset.
Some publishers and services offer reviewer search to editors. Even if you do not see those tools, you can still follow the same cues: recent output, fit to method, and clean contact data.
Screen For Conflicts And Bias
Conflicts include recent co-authorship, shared grants, same institution, or close personal ties. Remove anyone who supervised you, sat on your thesis panel, or collaborates with your co-authors. Use institutional email domains where possible and avoid private addresses when you suggest names.
A few publishers state that at least one reviewer should not be author-suggested, and editors may verify contact details. That is one reason to keep a broad pool and let the editor decide the mix.
Ethics, Exclusions, And Neutrality
Keep distance from your own network. Do not suggest close friends, former mentors, students, or current lab mates. If the portal has an oppose field, use it with calm, factual notes such as prior disputes or overlapping projects. Keep that note short and neutral.
If your work includes sensitive data or industry ties, state this in the submission letter so editors can weigh it when they choose reviewers. Use calm language and stick to facts.
How To Get Reviewers For A Journal Article: Practical Paths
Most submission portals include fields to suggest and oppose reviewers. Follow the journal’s rules on numbers, format, and conflicts. Many journals accept brief reasons with each name. Some also ask for names you prefer to exclude, with a short, neutral note. See this short note from Elsevier help page on how this works across titles.
Match Reviewers To Sections
Map the paper into parts: theory, method, data, and application. Then tag each candidate with one or two parts where they shine. When you supply your list, include that tag in the reason. This helps editors balance the panel.
Three-Level Fit
Primary topic: Same subfield as your paper.
Method: Familiar with your design or code base.
Context: A region or dataset that matches your study.
Validate Contact Details And Activity
Open the person’s lab or university page and confirm the email. Cross-check with ORCID or Scholar for recent work. Watch for title changes that hint at a move. Some publishers ask editors to verify details and to include at least one reviewer not on your list, which supports independence.
If a candidate uses a generic email, try to find a domain email through their lab page or a recent paper’s correspondence line.
Where To Find Fresh Names
STEM Fields
Scan data and code portals linked from recent papers. Users who maintain active repositories often write clear, precise feedback. Search benchmark leaderboards and method libraries for maintainers who write clean docs and tests.
Humanities And Social Sciences
Scan recent monographs, special issues, and seminar series. Speakers and editors of themed issues tend to sit close to the debate. Session chairs can suggest peers who read across subfields.
Computer Science
Search conference committees and artifact evaluators. Program chairs and area chairs often know who can review a method within a week or two. Names from best paper sessions are also useful.
Craft A Reviewer Pack For Editors
Create a small text block for each person: name, role, institution, domain email, one matching paper link, and two lines on fit. Place all picks in one plain list. Avoid attachments unless the portal asks for them.
If the portal allows links, add ORCID or lab pages. Keep formatting simple so the text renders cleanly in the editor’s dashboard.
Write Strong Rationale Notes
Editors skim. Give two crisp sentences that name the fit and cite one recent work. End with the part of the paper where their input would matter most. Keep a neutral tone and avoid praise.
Write Better Search Strings
Pair your main topic with method nouns and data sources. Use quotes for exact phrases and include wildcards only when needed. Add year ranges to surface current authors. Combine your topic with terms like survey name, instrument, or dataset tag. Repeat the search on Scholar, a publisher portal, and preprint servers.
Build a short list of synonyms for your core terms. Rotate them through your queries to surface adjacent work. Keep a note of which strings return fresh names so you can reuse them next time.
When And How To Reach Out (If Allowed)
Some journals prefer that authors do not contact potential reviewers. If the journal allows a brief approach before submission, keep it short and do not share the manuscript. Ask only if the topic fits their lane and if they would be willing to review if invited by the journal.
Time Savers And Etiquette
- Set a firm cap on hours spent scouting. Two to three focused sessions usually yield a solid list.
- Search in short sprints, then walk away. Fresh eyes help you spot conflicts.
- Use a text expander for your two-line reasons. Edit each one to fit the person.
- When you reference a paper in the reason, paste the short title, not the full citation.
- If a candidate declines a pre-check, send thanks and do not press for alternates unless they offer names.
- When your paper is accepted, send a brief thank you note through the journal if the system allows it.
Submit Smart In The Portal
Follow the journal guide on reviewer suggestions. Some portals accept one line per candidate, others ask for a full paragraph. Do not paste the same reason across names. Tailor each note to the fit and the part of the paper they can judge best.
Many journals allow authors to list opposed names. Keep that list short and factual. State the reason in one clause without emotion.
After Submission: What To Expect
Editors may invite some, all, or none of your picks. They may add others outside your list. That is normal. If you receive a desk decision, check your reasons and the scope match, then update your shortlist before the next submission.
Do not contact anyone about the review during evaluation unless the editor asks you to pass on a message. Respect the process and keep records private.
If You Get A Decline: Rebuild And Retry
When a journal declines without review, scan aims and scope again. Adjust the shortlist for the new journal’s audience. When a journal declines after review, thank the editor, revise the paper, and refresh the reviewer list with names matched to the main issues raised.
Field-Specific Notes
Biomedical
Use trial registries and method registries to locate statisticians and clinicians who work with the same designs. Cross-check for industry ties and institutional review roles.
Earth And Geo Sciences
Check data centers, field campaign teams, and instrument leads. People who run stations or models read data sections with care and can flag setup issues early.
Economics And Business
Search working paper series and seminar rosters. Many early versions list discussants. Those names make sharp, timely reviewers.
Balance Your List
Strive for spread across geography, gender, and career stage. Balance senior names with active mid-career scholars and rising voices. Add one person who knows the data source inside out and one who knows the method cold. Editors value breadth.
Lightweight Email Templates
| Situation | Subject Line | Email Draft (Short) |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-check (policy allows) | Review availability on [topic] | Dear Dr. [Name], I plan to submit a paper on [one line]. If invited by the journal, would you be open to review? No need to reply with detail. A simple yes/no is fine. Best, [Name] |
| Decline after invite | Thanks and alternate names | Dear Editor, I must decline due to workload. Suggested alternates: [Name, email, reason]; [Name, email, reason]. Regards, [Your Name] |
| Post-acceptance thanks | Thank you for your review | Dear Dr. [Name], thank you for the thoughtful report on our paper. Your notes improved [method or clarity]. With thanks, [Name] |
Keep A Private Tracker
Create a simple sheet with columns for name, role, institution, email, topic tags, method tags, last contact date, and notes. Add a column for any conflict flags. Update it after each submission so you avoid repeats and stale emails.
Avoid These Pitfalls
- Suggesting recent collaborators or anyone from your lab or company
- Listing celebrities with no time to review
- Copying the editorial board as your whole list
- Giving personal emails when a domain email exists
- Adding long praise in reasons; stay factual
- Overloading one region or one school
- Recycling the same names across many submissions
Why Editors Reject Suggested Reviewers
- Too close to the authors. Shared grants, shared lab, or recent joint papers raise doubts.
- Mismatch. The person’s last work does not align with the method or data in your study.
- Outdated contact. Bounced emails or generic emails slow the process.
- Overused names. The same person appears on many lists for the journal.
Quick Reviewer-Suggestion Checklist
- Three to six names with domain emails
- Two-sentence reasons with one recent citation
- Mix of topic and method fit
- No overlaps with your co-authors, mentors, or grants
- One or two fresh names beyond the usual circle
- Short list of opposed names with a neutral reason
- Contact details verified on lab or university pages
- All notes saved in your tracker for next time
Good reviewer picks speed up fair decisions and better revisions. Keep your list clean, varied, and grounded in public records. Editors will spot the care. Treat reviewer picking as part of writing.
For ethics and contact rules, see COPE rules for reviewers and Springer Nature policy.