How To Recommend Peer Reviewers: 6 Practical Tips For Authors

If you have ever reached the final step of a manuscript submission and paused at this question on the submission system, “Please recommend potential peer reviewers,” you are not alone. For many authors, this part feels uncertain, even uncomfortable. You might wonder what editors really expect from you, whether your suggestions will help, or how to do this without crossing ethical lines.

Why journals ask authors to recommend reviewers

Journal editors manage high submission volumes and the simple step of asking authors to recommend peer reviewers could help them save time. These recommendations can help them identify potential peer reviewers who understand your research area deeply, are active in the field, and can provide balanced feedback. That said, recommendations are just that. The final choice of peer reviewers is made editors. Your role, as an authors, is to help, not to influence the outcome. When done thoughtfully, recommending peer reviewers is a way for authors to support a fair, informed, and timely peer review process. Here are some practical tips to help you recommend peer reviewers with confidence and integrity.

1. Focus on relevance, not reputation

A common misconception is that only senior, highly visible researchers make good reviewers. However, relevance matters far more than reputation. A strong peer reviewer is someone who understands the methods, context, and current discussions in your field of study. When you recommend reviewers, think about who is actively publishing in this area right now. Recent authors of related studies, systematic reviews, or methodological papers are often excellent choices. Avoid focusing on seniority alone. Early- and mid-career researchers can also be thoughtful and thorough reviewers, especially when the topic closely aligns with their expertise.

2. Look beyond your immediate circle

It can be tempting to suggest people you already know well. Avoid recommending close collaborators, recent co-authors, mentors, or colleagues from the same institution, to avoid a conflict of interest. Cast a wider net. Consider researchers you have cited but have not worked with directly. Look at authors who present at conferences in your field or who engage thoughtfully with similar research questions. A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether the peer reviewer could assess your work independently and objectively. If the answer feels uncertain, it is better to choose someone else.

3. Use your references as a starting point

Your reference list is often the most practical place to begin when suggesting peer reviewers. These are researchers whose work has shaped your study and who understand the scholarly context. However, recommending reviewers does not mean recommending people who will agree with you. Editors value reviewers who can challenge assumptions and identify gaps constructively. Balance your list with researchers who may bring different perspectives but still have relevant expertise.

4. Provide helpful context for editors

When you recommend reviewers, do not just list names. If the submission system allows, briefly explain why each person is a good fit. A sentence about their specific expertise or recent work can be very helpful to editors making quick decisions. This is not about persuasion. It is about clarity and displaying how the peer reviewer’s background aligns with your manuscript, which supports a more efficient peer review process.

5. Be ethical and transparent

Ethical considerations are central to reviewer recommendations. Disclose any previous or current relationships with the reviewers you are recommending. Transparency builds trust and protects both you and the journal. Avoid suggesting reviewers who could have a personal or financial stake in the outcome of your research. If you are unsure about whether a connection counts as a conflict, err on the side of caution.

6. Do not overthink or worry about rejection or criticism

Some authors worry that suggesting reviewers might lead to harsher reviews. Others worry that not suggesting the “right” people could delay decisions. Thoughtful recommendations rarely harm a submission. Peer review is meant to strengthen research, not to blindly approve or disprove it. Constructive criticism is part of the process, regardless of who reviews your work. By recommending reviewers responsibly, you are contributing to a system that values quality, fairness, and scholarly rigor.

Recommending peer reviewers does not require inside knowledge or strategic maneuvering. It requires care, awareness, and respect for the process. When you focus on expertise, independence, and transparency, you are doing exactly what editors hope authors will do. At its best, peer review is a collaboration among authors, reviewers, and editors. Your peer reviewer suggestions are one small but meaningful part of that collaboration.