1. The editorial purpose of reviewer selection
Reviewer selection is part of editorial assessment, not an administrative exercise in filling empty invitation slots. The handling editor should construct a review process capable of answering the manuscript’s most important scientific and methodological questions while protecting independence, confidentiality and the integrity of the decision. A manuscript may need complementary expertise rather than several reviewers who all approach the work from the same angle.
Before searching for candidates, the editor should be able to state what external review is expected to contribute. That may include evaluation of the central scientific claim, appropriateness of the design, interpretation of a specialist method, clinical relevance, statistical reasoning, qualitative methodology, or another discipline-specific issue. This statement becomes the basis for deciding whom to invite and whether the eventual reviewer set is sufficient.
Reviewer selection remains an editorial responsibility even when candidate names come from databases, reference lists, prior reviewer records, authors, colleagues or automated matching systems. Discovery can be delegated to tools or staff; accountability for the invitation cannot.
2. Map the expertise required before searching for names
Read enough of the manuscript to identify its substantive field, study design, analytical approach, population or material studied, and the claims that will require specialist scrutiny. Titles and keywords are useful discovery aids but are too coarse to define the review needs of many interdisciplinary or methodologically complex submissions.
Build an expertise map rather than a single ideal-reviewer profile. One reviewer may be best positioned to assess the scientific question and disciplinary context, while another may be needed for statistics, qualitative methods, imaging, laboratory techniques, health economics, implementation science or another specialist component. The aim is complementary coverage, not duplication for its own sake.
Do not reject a candidate merely because they cannot assess every element of the paper. Instead, ask whether their expertise makes a defined contribution to the reviewer panel. Conversely, a prominent name in the broad field is not necessarily an appropriate reviewer if their expertise does not address the manuscript’s actual methods or claims.
3. Build a candidate pool from defensible scholarly signals
Potential reviewers can be identified from relevant publications, the manuscript’s references, editorial databases, prior high-quality reviews, professional roles and other verifiable scholarly records. Each source should generate candidates for assessment rather than function as an automatic recommendation.
Consider both topical and methodological relevance. A researcher who has published on the same disease, material or theoretical problem may not have the expertise to evaluate the design used in the submitted manuscript. Likewise, a methods specialist may provide essential scrutiny even if their substantive topic differs from the manuscript.
Avoid repeatedly drawing from a very small familiar network simply because those individuals are easy to contact. Overreliance on the same reviewers can create delays, narrow the perspectives available to the journal and increase the possibility of undisclosed professional relationships. A sustainable editorial practice continually develops a broader pool of qualified reviewers.
4. Verify identity, affiliation and a credible route of contact
Reasonable identity verification should occur before confidential manuscript material is made available. Editors should compare the candidate’s name, field, affiliation and contact information with independently available scholarly or institutional information when appropriate. Unfamiliar email domains, inconsistent affiliations, newly created profiles or contact details supplied only by an interested party deserve additional checking.
An institutional email address can support verification but should not be treated as the sole test of legitimacy. Independent researchers, retired scholars, clinicians and researchers moving institutions may appropriately use other addresses. The question is whether the editor can establish a credible connection between the contact route and the intended expert.
When doubt remains, use an independently verified professional or institutional channel, request clarification through the journal’s normal workflow, or select another candidate. Identity concerns should be investigated proportionately; an unusual address is a signal to verify, not proof of deception.
Editors should also guard against accidental misidentification of researchers with similar names. Persistent identifiers, institutional profiles and publication histories can help distinguish individuals and reduce the risk of inviting the wrong person.
5. Assess expertise, currency and capacity to review
A candidate’s publication record should demonstrate a meaningful relationship to the assessment requested. Look beyond publication count or academic title and consider the relevance of recent or foundational work, methodological experience and the candidate’s role in the field. Seniority is not a substitute for fit.
Qualified early-career researchers can provide rigorous and valuable reports when the assignment matches their expertise. Reviewer development should not depend on assumptions that only highly senior researchers can review. At the same time, editors should avoid assigning a technically demanding manuscript to someone whose record does not support the required expertise simply to broaden the pool.
Capacity also matters. A reviewer who is highly qualified but cannot devote adequate time to the manuscript is not necessarily the best choice for that round. Invitations should allow candidates to judge whether they can complete a careful review within the requested timeframe.
6. Screen competing interests and professional relationships
Conflict screening should consider financial, professional, academic, institutional and personal relationships that could compromise—or reasonably call into question—the independence of the review. Relevant examples can include recent collaboration, close mentorship or supervisory relationships, direct scientific competition, financial interests, personal disputes and other relationships defined by journal policy.
Recent co-authorship is an important signal, but name matching should not be applied mechanically. Large collaborations, consortia and multicenter studies may create nominal co-authorship without a close working relationship. Conversely, a significant relationship may exist without recent co-authorship. Editors should consider context and apply the journal’s published rules consistently.
Shared institutional affiliation commonly requires exclusion under journal policy, but complex organizations may require additional judgment. Former affiliations and multi-campus systems should be assessed in context. When a material relationship is uncertain and a clearly independent alternative is available, selecting the alternative can protect confidence in the process.
Conflict screening does not end with the editor’s search. The invitation should require the candidate to disclose interests the editor may not know about. When a potential conflict is disclosed, the editor—not the reviewer alone—decides whether it is compatible with independent review under applicable policy and records consequential judgments.
7. Use author suggestions and exclusion requests without surrendering editorial control
Author-suggested reviewers can be useful in specialized fields, but every suggested candidate should undergo the same expertise, identity and conflict checks as any independently identified reviewer. A suggestion is neither evidence of suitability nor evidence of impropriety.
Editors should independently verify contact information rather than relying solely on addresses supplied by authors. Where a candidate is appropriate, the invitation should be sent through a verified route controlled by the journal workflow. Suspicious patterns among multiple suggested reviewers warrant additional verification before any confidential access is granted.
Requests to exclude particular reviewers should be considered according to journal policy and the reasons provided. A credible concern about conflict, confidentiality or a close professional dispute may justify exclusion. However, exclusion requests should not allow authors to remove qualified independent experts simply because those experts may be critical of the work.
The final reviewer panel belongs to the editor. Author input can inform selection, but authors should not be able to construct or veto the panel in a way that undermines independent scrutiny.
8. Protect the process from fabricated reviewers and peer-review manipulation
Reviewer manipulation can involve fabricated identities, false contact details, accounts controlled by interested parties, coordinated reviewer suggestions, undisclosed relationships or attempts to route invitations through unverifiable addresses. Editors should be attentive to combinations of signals rather than treating any single anomaly as conclusive evidence.
Verification should be strengthened when candidate information is inconsistent, when several suggested reviewers share unusual contact patterns, when affiliations cannot be confirmed, or when an invitation is redirected to a different address without a clear explanation. Confidential files should not be released while a material identity concern remains unresolved.
If evidence raises a credible integrity concern, preserve the submission record, invitation history, contact information and other relevant material. Escalate through the journal’s research-integrity procedure rather than confronting individuals with unsupported accusations or attempting an informal investigation outside established governance.
The immediate operational priority is to protect confidential manuscript material and the integrity of the review process. The longer-term integrity assessment should be handled separately and fairly.
9. Construct a balanced and independent reviewer panel
The panel should collectively cover the expertise identified at the beginning of the process. Several reviewers from the same narrow research network may produce redundant perspectives and may also increase the risk of hidden relationships. Where feasible, choose complementary experts whose assessments can illuminate different aspects of the work.
Independence cannot be inferred from geography, nationality or institutional distance alone. Two researchers in different countries may be close collaborators, while researchers in the same broad professional system may have no meaningful relationship. Screen actual scholarly and professional connections rather than relying on demographic proxies.
A broad reviewer pool can improve resilience and reduce repeated dependence on a small group. Editors may consider career stage, geography, professional setting and other dimensions of diversity while keeping relevant expertise and independence as essential requirements. Diversity should expand access to qualified reviewers, not become token selection.
The number of reviewers should be proportionate to journal policy and the manuscript’s needs. Additional reports are useful when they add missing expertise or resolve a material uncertainty; they should not be sought merely to create the appearance of rigor.
10. Decide when specialist or additional review is necessary
Some manuscripts require targeted assessment by a statistician, qualitative-methods expert, imaging specialist, economist, laboratory scientist, ethicist or another specialist. Identify these needs early, ideally during initial assessment, so that the review process is designed intentionally rather than patched after contradictory reports arrive.
A specialist reviewer may be asked to assess a defined component rather than the entire manuscript. The invitation should make the scope clear where the journal’s workflow supports focused review. This can improve the quality of the report and avoid asking reviewers to make judgments outside their expertise.
Conflicting reviews do not automatically require another reviewer. The editor should first determine whether the disagreement reflects different interpretations that can be adjudicated editorially, a missing area of expertise, or a factual/methodological question that genuinely requires additional independent assessment.
Do not recruit extra reviewers merely to obtain a preferred recommendation. Additional review should answer an identified editorial question, not function as a vote designed to break a tie.
11. Prepare an invitation that enables an informed decision
The invitation should give the candidate enough information to decide whether the manuscript falls within their expertise, whether a conflict exists and whether they can meet the deadline. The amount of manuscript information disclosed before acceptance should be consistent with the journal’s peer-review model and confidentiality rules.
State the expected task, due date, confidentiality obligations, conflict-disclosure requirement and relevant policies. Where the journal has rules concerning AI tools, delegation to colleagues, use of manuscript content, or contact with authors, the invitation or linked guidance should make those expectations accessible.
The invitation should make declining straightforward. Reviewers are contributing specialist labor, and coercive language, repeated pressure or implications that acceptance is obligatory are inappropriate. A professional invitation supports better acceptance decisions and better reviews.
If a candidate proposes involving a trainee or colleague, follow the journal’s policy before manuscript access is shared. Any approved co-reviewer should be appropriately identified, bound by confidentiality and credited or recorded as the journal requires.
12. Set deadlines, reminders and invitation expiry proportionately
Review timelines should reflect manuscript complexity and the depth of assessment expected. Unrealistically short deadlines can produce rushed reports, repeated extension requests or unnecessary declines. Conversely, open-ended timelines can create avoidable delays for authors and editorial staff.
Use a defined reminder and expiry process. If an invitation remains unanswered, a limited number of professional reminders may be appropriate before the invitation is closed and another candidate approached. The system should make the true status of reviewer recruitment visible to the handling editor.
Extensions can be reasonable when the reviewer communicates promptly and the delay remains compatible with fair handling of the manuscript. Editors should consider whether waiting for a particular reviewer adds sufficient value or whether a qualified replacement would better serve the process.
Avoid sending more simultaneous invitations than the workflow can responsibly manage unless the journal has a clear method for closing excess invitations. Inviting many people and then discarding completed work wastes reviewer effort and can damage trust.
13. Manage declines, substitutions and reviewer recommendations
A decline is a normal outcome and should be handled professionally. Reviewers should not be required to disclose personal circumstances beyond what they choose to share. Repeatedly pressuring someone who has declined is unlikely to improve the process.
A declining reviewer may suggest alternatives. Treat these names as leads, not as pre-approved substitutes. Independently assess expertise, identity and conflicts before issuing any invitation, because the editor remains responsible for the resulting reviewer panel.
When a reviewer withdraws after accepting, determine whether confidential files remain accessible and close access according to the journal’s system and policy. If a replacement is required, apply the same standards used for the original candidate rather than lowering the threshold because the manuscript has already been delayed.
If a reviewer wishes to transfer the task to a colleague, do not permit informal substitution. The proposed individual should be separately approved and recorded through the journal workflow before gaining access.
14. Monitor review progress and respond to non-delivery
Once a reviewer accepts, monitoring should support completion without becoming harassment. Automated reminders can be useful, but the editor should intervene when repeated reminders produce no response, when promised extensions are missed, or when the manuscript is being held by a reviewer who is unlikely to deliver.
A late review may still be worth waiting for if the reviewer has unique expertise and provides a credible completion date. The decision should balance the expected value of the report against delay to the authors and whether sufficient independent expertise is already available.
When a report does not arrive, replace the reviewer if necessary and document the change. Time already invested in waiting should not become a reason to continue waiting indefinitely.
Editorial offices should use accumulated workflow data to identify chronic recruitment bottlenecks, unrealistic deadlines or overused reviewers. Operational learning can improve timeliness without compromising selection standards.
15. Evaluate whether a submitted review is usable
Receiving a report does not automatically mean the peer-review requirement has been satisfied. Editors should assess whether the report engages with the manuscript, addresses relevant scientific issues, distinguishes major from minor concerns and provides enough reasoning to inform a decision.
Reports that are extremely superficial, abusive, discriminatory, dominated by irrelevant citation demands, compromised by an undisclosed conflict or otherwise inconsistent with reviewer responsibilities may require editorial intervention. The editor can disregard inappropriate elements, seek clarification, request another review or take other proportionate action.
The editor should not evaluate a reviewer by whether their recommendation matches the eventual decision. A thoughtful review can be valuable even when the editor reaches a different conclusion. Reviewer quality is about reasoning, relevance, independence and professional conduct.
When a report raises a research-integrity concern, separate the scientific review from the integrity process. Do not ask the reviewer to investigate beyond their role or expose confidential allegations unnecessarily.
16. Protect confidentiality throughout reviewer recruitment and review
Confidentiality begins before a reviewer accepts. Candidate discovery, identity verification and invitations should disclose only the information necessary for the journal’s review model. Manuscript files, unpublished data and confidential author information should remain within approved systems and workflows.
Editors should not upload confidential manuscript content to external search, translation, AI or reviewer-discovery services unless that use is specifically authorized and compatible with the publisher’s data and confidentiality requirements. Convenience does not override the obligations attached to an unpublished submission.
If an invitation is sent to the wrong person or a confidentiality breach is suspected, act promptly to limit further access, preserve the record and follow the journal’s incident procedure. The appropriate response depends on what information was disclosed and whether it was accessed.
Reviewer identities should also be protected according to the journal’s peer-review model. Editors should not reveal confidential reviewer information to authors or other reviewers outside the circumstances permitted by policy.
17. Use AI and automated reviewer-matching systems with human accountability
Automated matching systems can help discover candidates by analyzing topics, publications or metadata, but a high match score does not establish identity, independence or absence of competing interests. The handling editor should independently evaluate the candidate before invitation.
Understand what information is sent to the tool. If a system requires manuscript text, unpublished figures or other confidential material, its use must be authorized under applicable publisher and journal requirements. Unapproved generative AI services should not receive confidential submissions merely to produce reviewer suggestions.
Algorithmic recommendations can reproduce narrow networks or other biases present in underlying data. Editors should avoid treating automated rankings as objective measures of reviewer quality and should be willing to search beyond the first recommended names.
Human accountability is non-delegable. The editorial record should support why a reviewer was selected even when a tool assisted discovery; “the system recommended them” is not a sufficient editorial rationale.
18. Prevent citation coercion, reciprocal reviewing and strategic selection
Reviewer selection should never be designed to generate citations to a preferred journal, editor, research group or individual. Editors should not invite reviewers because they are expected to impose particular citation demands or to produce a favorable recommendation.
Be attentive to patterns of reciprocal reviewing, repeated closed networks, excessive self-citation requests or reviewer comments that appear primarily intended to increase citations rather than improve the manuscript. Such behavior may require editorial correction and, when persistent or coordinated, further review.
Editors should distinguish legitimate requests to engage with directly relevant literature from coercive or irrelevant citation demands. Authors should not be required to cite work solely to satisfy a reviewer’s metrics or preferences.
Where the editor removes or rejects an inappropriate reviewer request, the decision can be communicated without disclosing confidential internal concerns beyond what is necessary.
19. Maintain reviewer records and develop the reviewer pool responsibly
Reviewer records can support future selection by documenting expertise, timeliness, report quality, conflict disclosures and professional conduct. These records should be used to improve matching and workflow, not to reward reviewers for recommending acceptance or rejection.
A reviewer who declines promptly may remain an excellent future candidate. Likewise, a late review should be interpreted in context rather than becoming a permanent label. Editorial records should distinguish isolated circumstances from repeated patterns.
Developing new reviewers can reduce pressure on a small group of established experts. Journals may broaden their pool through careful identification of qualified researchers, appropriate co-review arrangements where permitted, and feedback or guidance that helps reviewers understand expectations.
Records should be factual, proportionate and protected as confidential editorial information. Avoid speculative, insulting or unnecessary personal comments in reviewer profiles or manuscript notes.
20. Document selection decisions and preserve an audit trail
The manuscript record should show whom the journal invited, when invitations were sent, whether candidates accepted or declined, relevant declared conflicts, replacements and material reasons for unusual reviewer choices. This record supports continuity when editors change and helps address later questions, appeals or complaints.
Not every routine choice requires a long narrative. Documentation should be proportionate to the significance of the decision. More detailed notes are appropriate when a potential conflict was judged manageable, a reviewer was removed, identity concerns arose, or the editor departed from the journal’s usual process.
Internal notes should describe observable facts and editorial reasoning rather than speculate about motives. If an integrity concern is escalated, preserve the relevant records according to the applicable procedure.
A defensible process should allow another authorized editor to understand how the reviewer panel was constructed without reconstructing the decision from memory.
21. A repeatable reviewer-selection decision framework
Before each invitation, ask: What expertise does this manuscript need? What evidence shows that this candidate can provide it? How has identity been reasonably verified? What known conflicts or relationships were considered? What confidential information will the candidate receive at this stage?
Before proceeding with the review panel, ask whether the reviewers collectively cover the important scientific and methodological dimensions, whether the panel is sufficiently independent, and whether an additional specialist would add necessary information rather than simply another opinion.
During recruitment, monitor unanswered invitations, extensions, substitutions and unusual contact patterns. During review, evaluate whether submitted reports are substantive and professionally usable. After the decision, preserve the relevant record and update reviewer information responsibly.
The standard is not perfect prediction of reviewer behavior. It is a transparent, expert, independent, secure and proportionate selection process that the editor can explain and document.