How to Suggest Suitable Preferred and Non-Preferred Peer Reviewers

How to Suggest Preferred and Non-Preferred Peer Reviewers for Journal Articles

Introduction: Reviewer Suggestions Can Help or Harm Your Submission

Many scholarly journals ask authors to suggest potential peer reviewers when submitting a manuscript. Some also allow authors to identify researchers whom they would prefer not to review their work. These options can be valuable. Authors usually know their specialist research communities extremely well and may be able to identify experts whose knowledge closely matches the topic, methodology or theoretical framework of a manuscript.

However, reviewer suggestions need to be handled carefully. What authors regard as a helpful list of experts may look very different from an editor's perspective. Editors are responsible for protecting the independence, fairness and credibility of peer review. They therefore need to consider not only whether a suggested reviewer has appropriate expertise, but also whether there are professional, institutional, financial or personal relationships that might compromise—or appear to compromise—the reviewer's independence.

Problems can arise when authors submit long lists of preferred reviewers, extensive lists of non-preferred reviewers, or names that have obvious connections with the research team. Instead of making the editor's job easier, these choices may raise concerns that the authors are attempting to influence the outcome of peer review.

The goal should therefore never be to identify reviewers who are likely to respond favourably. The goal is to help the editor find qualified, independent experts capable of providing a rigorous and fair assessment.

1. Why Journals Ask Authors to Suggest Peer Reviewers

Finding suitable reviewers is one of the most demanding parts of journal editing. An editor must identify researchers who possess the necessary expertise, have no significant conflicts of interest, are currently active in the field, are willing to undertake the review and can return a useful report within a reasonable period.

Securing reviewers can take considerable time. Invitations may be declined because researchers are too busy, consider the manuscript outside their precise expertise, have already accepted too many reviews or recognise a conflict of interest. Several invitations may therefore be required before an editor secures even one reviewer.

Author suggestions can help, particularly when:

• the manuscript deals with a highly specialised topic;
• the methodology requires unusual technical expertise;
• the study is interdisciplinary;
• the relevant research community is small;
• the journal covers a broad field and the editor may not know every specialist;
• the research concerns a new or rapidly developing area.

In these circumstances, a short, carefully chosen list can provide a useful starting point. The important consideration is that the suggestions genuinely assist the editor rather than restrict editorial freedom.

2. Independence Is Central to Credible Peer Review

Editors value reviewer independence because the reputation of both the journal and the scholarly record depends upon fair assessment. A peer reviewer should be able to evaluate a manuscript on its academic merits rather than on loyalty, rivalry, personal relationships or financial interests.

This is why journals frequently prohibit authors from suggesting people who have close connections with them. Depending on journal policy, problematic relationships may include:

• current or recent co-authorship;
• employment at the same institution;
• supervisor–student relationships;
• current research collaborations;
• shared grants or commercial interests;
• close personal relationships;
• other circumstances that could reasonably create a perception of bias.

Different journals define conflicts differently. Some specify that suggested reviewers must not have co-authored with any author during the previous three or five years. Others leave the matter to editorial judgement.

Authors should therefore read the journal's reviewer-suggestion requirements carefully before entering names into the submission system.

3. Why One Inappropriate Suggestion Can Affect the Entire List

An author may believe that a previous professional relationship is too minor or too old to matter. An editor may not agree. More importantly, discovering one questionable relationship may cause the editor to investigate the other suggested reviewers more closely.

Imagine that an author suggests five preferred reviewers. The editor searches their publication histories and discovers that one has published several recent articles with the submitting author. Even if the remaining four candidates are completely independent, the editor may reasonably wonder whether there are less obvious relationships with them as well.

The problem is therefore not limited to the unsuitable name itself. It can reduce confidence in the judgement behind the entire list.

Editors can investigate reviewer relationships using publication indexes, ORCID profiles, institutional webpages, search engines and editorial databases. Some journal systems also use automated conflict-detection tools. Authors should assume that professional connections can and will be checked.

4. Preferred Does Not Mean Guaranteed

The expression preferred reviewer can be misleading. It does not mean that the author has selected a member of the review panel. It simply identifies a researcher whom the editor may wish to consider.

The editor retains complete responsibility for reviewer selection and may:

• invite one or more author-suggested reviewers;
• combine author suggestions with independently identified experts;
• choose entirely different reviewers;
• seek recommendations from associate editors or editorial board members;
• use reviewer-matching systems or bibliographic databases.

Authors should therefore avoid constructing their submission strategy around the assumption that their preferred reviewers will evaluate the paper.

5. Why Very Long Preferred Lists May Backfire

Providing many names can initially appear helpful. If three suggestions are useful, perhaps ten would be even better. Yet a very long list may have unintended consequences.

Editors may wonder why the author feels the need to identify such a large proportion of the possible reviewer pool. If the preferred list is combined with an equally extensive non-preferred list, it may begin to look as though the author is attempting to divide the field into acceptable and unacceptable reviewers.

This is especially problematic when the preferred names have intellectual positions similar to those of the authors and the excluded researchers are known critics of those positions. Peer review is intended to expose research to informed critical scrutiny, not to guarantee agreement.

Unless the journal asks for a specific number, a smaller list of carefully selected experts is generally more credible and useful than a lengthy collection of names.

6. What Makes a Good Preferred Reviewer?

A strong reviewer suggestion should satisfy two central requirements: relevant expertise and genuine independence.

Ideally, the researcher should:

• have published recently on the manuscript's topic or methodology;
• possess enough expertise to evaluate the work critically;
• be actively involved in the relevant research area;
• work at an institution independent of the authors;
• have no significant recent co-authorship with the research team;
• have no financial or personal interest in the outcome;
• have reliable professional contact details.

The strongest suggestions are often researchers whose work appears naturally in the manuscript's intellectual landscape but who have no close relationship with the authors.

7. Expertise Is More Important Than Academic Fame

Authors sometimes nominate only the most prominent scholars in their fields. Famous researchers may certainly be excellent reviewers, but reputation alone does not make someone the best choice.

Highly prominent academics may receive large numbers of review invitations and may therefore be especially likely to decline. They may also work broadly within the field without having the specialised methodological expertise required by a particular manuscript.

A mid-career researcher who has recently published several studies using the same method may be a much more appropriate reviewer. Similarly, an experienced early-career academic can be an excellent choice when their research directly overlaps with the manuscript's subject.

The question should therefore be: Who is genuinely qualified to assess this paper? Prestige should be secondary.

8. Avoid Suggesting Close Collaborators

Co-authorship is one of the clearest warning signs editors look for. A researcher who has recently published with one or more of the authors may reasonably be perceived as insufficiently independent.

Other relationships can be equally important. A researcher may never have co-authored with you but may be working on the same funded project, belong to the same laboratory network or have an ongoing supervisory relationship with a co-author.

Do not interpret the absence of a co-authored paper as proof that no conflict exists. Consider the broader professional relationship.

If the field is so small that almost every qualified expert has some connection with the authors, disclose this to the editor rather than hoping that the relationship will not be noticed.

9. Do Not Contact Preferred Reviewers About the Manuscript

Authors should generally avoid contacting potential reviewers before submitting their names unless the journal explicitly instructs them to do so.

Informing a colleague that you intend to suggest them can compromise the appearance of independence. Discussing the manuscript with them is even more problematic because they may later be asked to provide a confidential review.

Allow the editor to contact reviewers independently through the journal's normal procedures.

10. What Is a Non-Preferred Reviewer?

A non-preferred reviewer is a researcher whom the author asks the editor not to invite. Journals offer this option because legitimate conflicts can exist that may not be obvious to the editorial team.

Valid reasons might include:

• a direct and current research competition;
• a serious personal or professional conflict;
• involvement in closely competing unpublished work;
• a recent collaboration that creates a conflict;
• access to confidential information relating to the research;
• a significant financial or institutional interest in the outcome.

The mechanism is intended to protect fair peer review. It should not be used to remove everyone who might be critical of the manuscript.

11. Why Long Non-Preferred Lists Can Create Problems

A short list containing one or two genuine conflicts is unlikely to concern an editor. A list excluding ten leading experts may.

Extensive exclusions can create the impression that the author is attempting to control the review process. They also create a practical problem: every excluded researcher reduces the number of experts available to the editor.

This is particularly serious in specialised fields. If the manuscript requires very specific expertise and the author excludes many of the researchers who possess it, the editor may struggle to find suitable reviewers at all.

There is also no guarantee that an editor will honour every exclusion. Journal policies differ, and editors retain responsibility for selecting reviewers. Authors should therefore request exclusions only when they can provide a legitimate reason.

12. Explain Significant Exclusions

If an exclusion is important, explain it briefly and professionally. The submission system may provide a dedicated field for this information; otherwise, a concise statement can be included in the cover letter.

Another explanation might note recent co-authorship or an institutional relationship that is not obvious from current affiliations.

A factual explanation reassures the editor that the request is motivated by research integrity rather than an attempt to avoid criticism.

13. The Particular Challenge of Small Research Fields

Researchers working in small fields face a genuine difficulty. The most qualified experts may also be former collaborators, co-authors, supervisors or competitors simply because only a limited number of scholars work on the subject.

Trying to produce a completely connection-free list may be impossible.

Transparency is therefore essential. If a proposed reviewer has an older professional connection but no current collaboration, explain the situation and allow the editor to decide whether the relationship is acceptable under the journal's policy.

For example, an author might explain that a proposed reviewer co-authored a paper with the research group six years earlier but has had no collaboration with any of the authors since. The editor can then judge whether that relationship falls outside the journal's conflict-of-interest window.

In small fields, this kind of openness is far better than pretending that no relationships exist. Editors are generally familiar with the fact that specialised communities can be tightly interconnected.

14. Interdisciplinary Manuscripts May Need Several Types of Expertise

Interdisciplinary research adds another layer of complexity to reviewer selection because no single scholar may be able to evaluate every aspect of the work.

A manuscript might combine:

• a specialised laboratory technique;
• advanced statistical modelling;
• a clinical or practical application;
• a theoretical framework drawn from another discipline.

In such cases, authors can help by suggesting reviewers with complementary expertise. One reviewer may be ideal for the methodology, another for the subject area and a third for the theoretical context.

If the submission system allows a brief explanation beside each suggested reviewer, use it constructively:

This demonstrates that the suggestions are based on scholarly relevance rather than personal preference.

15. Check Every Name Before You Submit It

Before entering reviewer details, conduct a basic conflict and relevance check. You do not need to perform an exhaustive investigation, but you should ensure that nothing obvious has been overlooked.

Check:

• recent co-authorships with any of the manuscript's authors;
• current and recent institutional affiliations;
• participation in shared research projects;
• grant or commercial relationships;
• supervisory or mentoring relationships;
• whether the researcher's recent publications actually match the manuscript.

This step is particularly important when the research team has several co-authors. A proposed reviewer may have no connection with the corresponding author but may have collaborated recently with another member of the author group.

16. Supply Accurate Professional Information

Reviewer recommendations are only useful if the information provided is accurate. Submission systems may request:

• full name;
• institution;
• department;
• professional email address;
• ORCID;
• area of expertise.

Check all details before submission. Researchers change institutions and email addresses, and outdated information creates additional work for editors.

Where possible, use an institutional email address rather than a personal account. Professional contact information makes it easier for the journal to verify the identity of a potential reviewer and reduces concerns about fraudulent peer-review activity.

17. Never Attempt to Manipulate Reviewer Identities

There is a clear ethical boundary between suggesting suitable reviewers and manipulating the peer-review process. Authors must never provide false reviewer identities, fabricated email addresses or contact information controlled by themselves or their associates.

Peer-review manipulation is serious publication misconduct. Journals have retracted papers and publishers have investigated authors when fraudulent reviewer accounts were used to generate favourable reports.

The principle is simple: every suggested reviewer must be a real, identifiable scholar who can be contacted independently by the journal.

18. Avoid Suggesting Only Reviewers Who Are Likely to Agree with You

Reviewer expertise should not be confused with intellectual agreement. A good reviewer may disagree strongly with your interpretation while still providing a fair and constructive assessment.

Authors should therefore avoid choosing people solely because they:

• support the same theory;
• have previously cited the authors favourably;
• are known advocates of the same methodology;
• are personally sympathetic to the research programme.

An editor who sees a preferred list composed entirely of scholars from one narrow intellectual camp may question whether the list was designed to secure favourable reviews.

A better list reflects genuine expertise and independence, even if the suggested researchers may approach the subject from different perspectives.

19. Do Not Exclude Reviewers Merely Because They May Be Critical

The same principle applies to non-preferred reviewers. Disagreement is not automatically a conflict of interest.

If a scholar has publicly criticised your theoretical framework or reached different conclusions in previous research, that alone may not justify excluding them. Academic debate depends on informed disagreement.

An exclusion becomes more defensible when there is evidence that the researcher cannot provide an impartial review because of:

• a direct personal dispute;
• a current competitive conflict;
• a financial interest;
• a close institutional relationship;
• another specific circumstance affecting independence.

The distinction is important. Authors should protect themselves from genuine conflicts, not from rigorous criticism.

20. The Cover Letter Can Provide Important Context

The journal cover letter is an appropriate place to explain unusual reviewer circumstances briefly. This might include a very small field, unavoidable historical collaborations or several necessary exclusions.

Keep explanations short, neutral and factual. The cover letter should not become a lengthy defence of why particular scholars should or should not review the manuscript.

This gives the editor useful information without attempting to dictate a decision.

21. Your Title, Abstract and Keywords Help Editors Find Reviewers

Reviewer selection does not depend only on the names you provide. Editors and editorial systems often use the manuscript's title, abstract, keywords and references to identify appropriate experts.

This makes these elements important for more than discoverability after publication. A clear title and informative abstract can help an editor understand immediately:

• the central research question;
• the discipline and subdiscipline;
• the methods used;
• the principal variables or concepts;
• the populations or materials studied.

Precise keywords can further assist reviewer-matching tools and editorial database searches.

For example, a vague title such as “A New Approach to Clinical Prediction” gives an editor relatively little information. A more precise title naming the disease, modelling technique and patient population makes relevant expertise much easier to identify.

22. References Can Also Help Identify Suitable Experts

The references cited in a manuscript often reveal the active scholarly community surrounding the research. Editors may examine the bibliography when searching for potential reviewers, particularly if the paper addresses a specialised topic.

This provides another reason to ensure that the literature review is current, balanced and accurate. A bibliography dominated by one small research group or missing major recent work can make reviewer identification more difficult and may also raise questions about the completeness of the scholarship.

Authors should cite work because it is relevant, not because they hope the authors of those papers will become reviewers. Nevertheless, a strong and representative reference list naturally gives editors useful leads.

23. When Providing No Reviewer Suggestions May Be Best

If reviewer suggestions are optional, there are situations in which providing none may be entirely reasonable.

This may be the best approach when:

• the field is so interconnected that genuine independence is difficult to establish;
• you cannot identify suitable experts without potential conflicts;
• you are uncertain whether particular relationships violate the journal's policy;
• the journal is broad and has a strong editorial board capable of identifying reviewers easily.

Not providing suggestions does not necessarily disadvantage a manuscript. In some cases, it may convey confidence that the paper's content is clear enough for the editor to identify appropriate reviewers independently.

It also demonstrates trust in editorial judgement, which can contribute to a constructive professional relationship.

24. Preferred and Non-Preferred Reviewers: A Practical Checklist

25. Common Mistakes Authors Should Avoid

Several mistakes recur when authors supply reviewer information.

Suggesting recent co-authors

This is one of the most obvious potential conflicts and can immediately undermine confidence in the list.

Providing too many names

Unless requested, an extensive preferred list can look like an attempt to control reviewer selection.

Excluding everyone likely to disagree

Academic disagreement is not a valid conflict by itself.

Failing to explain genuine conflicts

If a relationship or competitive situation is unusual, a short explanation can prevent misunderstanding.

Providing outdated contact details

Incorrect affiliations and inactive email addresses waste editorial time.

Choosing prestige over relevance

The most famous scholar is not necessarily the reviewer best equipped to evaluate the paper.

Assuming preferred reviewers will be used

Reviewer selection remains an editorial decision.

26. Think Like an Editor

One of the best ways to approach reviewer suggestions is to imagine that you are the handling editor.

Ask yourself whether the list would make you feel more confident about the authors' commitment to an independent process. Would the proposed reviewers appear qualified? Would the exclusions seem reasonable? Would any relationships immediately raise questions?

Editors want to find reviewers who will:

• understand the manuscript;
• identify important strengths and weaknesses;
• provide constructive and evidence-based criticism;
• return their reports on time;
• evaluate the work without inappropriate influence.

If your suggestions genuinely help achieve those goals, they are likely to be useful.

27. Trust Is Better Than Attempted Control

Authors naturally want their research to receive a fair hearing. After months or years of work, the prospect of an unsuitable or hostile reviewer can be unsettling. It is therefore understandable that authors may be tempted to use reviewer lists strategically.

However, excessive attempts to control peer review can damage the very confidence authors hope to create. Long preferred lists, numerous exclusions and questionable relationships may lead editors to disregard author input entirely.

A more effective approach is to demonstrate transparency and trust. Provide useful information when you have it, explain genuine conflicts when necessary and then allow the editor to perform the editorial role independently.

This approach establishes a healthier relationship between author and journal and supports the credibility of the eventual publication.

Conclusion

Preferred and non-preferred reviewer suggestions can be useful tools in scholarly publishing, but they must be handled with restraint, transparency and respect for editorial independence. The purpose of suggesting reviewers is to help an editor locate qualified experts, not to construct a review panel likely to produce a favourable decision.

Authors should nominate researchers whose expertise closely matches the manuscript and who have no significant conflicts of interest. Recent co-authors, institutional colleagues, current collaborators and individuals with financial or personal interests should normally be avoided. Suggested reviewers should be checked carefully before submission, and accurate professional contact information should be supplied.

Non-preferred lists require equal care. Genuine conflicts may justify exclusions, but large lists can appear manipulative and may make it difficult for an editor to find qualified experts. When multiple exclusions are unavoidable, a short and factual explanation can reassure the editor that the concern is legitimate.

Researchers in small or specialised fields should be especially transparent about unavoidable professional connections. Interdisciplinary authors can help by suggesting reviewers with complementary forms of expertise rather than simply supplying famous names.

In some circumstances, the most sensible choice may be to suggest no reviewers at all. A precise title, informative abstract, carefully selected keywords and representative reference list can give editors the information they need to identify experts independently.

Ultimately, successful reviewer suggestions are based on the same principles that underpin good scholarly publishing more broadly: independence, transparency, fairness and trust. Authors who respect those principles not only reduce the risk of raising editorial concerns but also contribute to a more credible and constructive peer-review process.

Why Our Editing and Proofreading Services?

At Proof-Reading-Service.com we offer the highest quality journal article editing, dissertation proofreading and online proofreading services via our large and extremely dedicated team of academic and scientific professionals. All of our proofreaders are native speakers of English who have earned their own postgraduate degrees, and their areas of specialisation cover such a wide range of disciplines that we are able to help our international clientele with research editing to improve and perfect all kinds of academic manuscripts for successful publication.

Many of the carefully trained members of our manuscript editing and proofreading team work predominantly on articles intended for publication in scholarly journals, applying painstaking journal article editing standards to ensure that the references and formatting used in each paper conform to the journal's instructions for authors and to correct grammar, spelling, punctuation and typing errors. In this way, we help our clients report their research clearly and accurately and prepare professional manuscripts for editorial assessment and peer review.

Our scientific editing and proofreading services for authors of scientific journal papers are especially popular, but we also provide manuscript editing and have the experience and expertise required to proofread and edit manuscripts across scholarly disciplines.

We have team members who specialise in medical editing and proofreading, while other experts dedicate their time to dissertation proofreading, PhD thesis editing and journal article proofreading. Whether you are preparing a research article for submission, responding to peer-review comments, polishing a conference paper or completing a thesis, a qualified member of our professional team can provide valuable assistance.

If you are preparing an article for an academic or scientific journal, you may also be interested in the Guide to Journal Publication, available on our Tips and Advice on Publishing Research in Journals website.