How to Suggest Three Qualified Reviewers Ethically

For many researchers, suggesting potential peer reviewers is a routine part of manuscript submission. Yet this request should not be treated as a simple administrative exercise. Recommending reviewers is an important contribution to the integrity and efficiency of peer review, and the individuals selected should be capable of providing an independent, knowledgeable, and professionally objective assessment of the manuscript.

At Crosslink Studies (CLS), authors are requested to suggest three potential reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript. Authors are expected to provide the reviewers’ names and appropriate contact information, while the editorial team retains responsibility for determining whether a suggested reviewer is suitable and whether to invite that individual. CLS also sets clear expectations regarding independence, relevant expertise, institutional affiliation, recent collaboration, and scholarly experience.

The purpose of suggesting reviewers is not to identify people who are likely to agree with the authors or recommend publication. The ethical purpose is to help editors identify qualified experts who can evaluate the research fairly. This distinction is essential. A reviewer recommendation should strengthen the integrity of the editorial process, not create an opportunity to influence its outcome.

Selecting three suitable reviewers therefore requires careful judgment. Authors should consider expertise, independence, potential conflicts of interest, professional credentials, and the ability of the proposed reviewer to assess the specific methods and subject matter of the manuscript.

Understand the Purpose of Reviewer Suggestions

A suggested reviewer is a recommendation, not an appointment. The final decision about who evaluates a manuscript belongs to the editor.

This editorial independence is fundamental to credible peer review. Major scholarly publishers similarly make clear that reviewer suggestions may assist the editorial process but do not oblige a journal to use the nominated individuals. Editors are expected to consider expertise and potential conflicts and to verify reviewer identities where necessary. Authors should therefore approach the task with the following principle:

Suggest the most appropriate experts, not the most favorable contacts.

This mindset immediately changes how potential reviewers are evaluated. Instead of asking, “Who knows my research and may support it?”, authors should ask:

• Who has genuine expertise in this specific area?
• Who can evaluate the methodology used?
• Who is sufficiently independent from the authors and the research?
• Who has a credible and verifiable scholarly profile?
• Who could provide an objective and constructive assessment?

Start with Subject-Matter Expertise

The first requirement of a qualified reviewer is relevant expertise. A prominent academic title alone does not automatically make someone suitable to review a particular manuscript.

Authors should examine whether a potential reviewer has demonstrated expertise through:

• Recent publications in the relevant research area.
• Experience with the specific methodology or analytical approach.
• Recognized contributions to the field.
• Relevant institutional or research experience.
• A scholarly record that can be verified through professional sources such as an institutional profile, ORCID, Scopus, or other recognized publication records.

Independence Is as Important as Expertise

An expert reviewer is not necessarily an independent reviewer.

One of the most important ethical responsibilities when suggesting reviewers is to avoid individuals whose relationship with the authors could create an actual or perceived conflict of interest.

CLS guidance states that reviewers should avoid conflicts with authors, should not be affiliated with the same institution as an author, and should not have collaborated on publications with an author within the previous three years. Authors should therefore carefully screen potential reviewers for relationships that could reasonably raise concerns about impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include:

• Recent co-authorship.
• Current or recent collaboration.
• Working at the same institution.
• A close mentoring or supervisory relationship.
• Joint research grants or closely connected projects.
• Close personal relationships.
• Financial or professional interests connected to the research.
• Circumstances involving direct competition that may affect objectivity.

Do Not Select Reviewers Based on Expected Favorability

One of the clearest ethical mistakes is choosing reviewers primarily because they are likely to provide a positive evaluation. A former collaborator, close colleague, mentor, or personal contact may know the research well, but familiarity is not the same as independence.

Authors should never treat reviewer suggestions as a way to secure a favorable outcome. Peer review exists to provide critical evaluation. A rigorous reviewer may identify weaknesses, request additional clarification, or recommend substantial revisions. These outcomes are part of a legitimate scholarly process. The appropriate question is not:

“Will this person like our findings?”

It is:

“Is this person qualified and independent enough to evaluate our findings fairly?”

This approach reflects scholarly maturity and demonstrates respect for the editorial process.

Verify the Reviewer’s Identity and Contact Information

Ethical reviewer nomination also requires accurate and verifiable information.Authors should provide genuine professional details rather than personal assumptions, outdated contacts, or information obtained from unreliable sources. Where possible, institutional email addresses provide an additional level of verification. Before submitting a suggested reviewer, authors should verify:

• The correct spelling of the reviewer’s name.
• Current institutional affiliation.
• Professional or institutional email address, where available.
• Relevant areas of expertise.
• Recent scholarly activity.
• A reliable source for confirming identity.

Build a Balanced Group of Three Reviewers

When a journal requests three reviewers, authors should avoid selecting three individuals with nearly identical backgrounds or from the same academic network. A stronger approach is to create a balanced group with complementary expertise.

For example:

Reviewer 1: Subject Specialist
An expert who works directly on the manuscript’s central research topic.

Reviewer 2: Methodological Expert
A researcher with strong knowledge of the primary method, analytical technique, experimental design, or statistical approach.

Reviewer 3: Broader or Interdisciplinary Expert
A scholar who can assess the wider theoretical, practical, or interdisciplinary significance of the work.

This does not mean that every submission must follow exactly this structure. The appropriate combination will depend on the manuscript. However, thinking strategically about complementary expertise can help authors identify a stronger and more diverse group of potential reviewers.

Springer Nature also recommends considering independence across institutions and encourages diversity in reviewer suggestions, including a mix of institutions and geographical backgrounds where appropriate.

Check Recent Collaboration Carefully

Recent collaboration is one of the easiest conflicts to overlook. Researchers working in the same field may have co-authored papers, participated in joint projects, shared grants, or worked closely within the same research network. Before suggesting a reviewer, authors should examine their recent professional connections.

A practical approach is to review:

• Recent publications.
• Research projects.
• Grant collaborations.
• Institutional affiliations.
• Supervisory relationships.
• Professional partnerships.

CLS specifically identifies collaboration within the previous three years as a relevant criterion when assessing reviewer independence. This review should include all authors, not only the corresponding author. A potential reviewer may have no connection with the person submitting the manuscript but may have recently collaborated with another co-author.

Consider Whether the Reviewer Can Assess the Whole Manuscript

A potential reviewer may be highly knowledgeable about one narrow element of a study while lacking expertise in its most important methodological or theoretical components. Authors should consider the manuscript as a whole. Can the proposed reviewer reasonably assess:

• The research question?
• The theoretical framework?
• The methodology?
• The quality of the analysis?
• The interpretation of findings?
• The validity of the conclusions?

A reviewer does not need to be an expert in every detail. However, the suggested group of reviewers should collectively provide strong coverage of the manuscript’s key scholarly components.

This is particularly important for interdisciplinary research. A single reviewer may understand the application but not the method, while another may understand the method but not the disciplinary context. Thoughtful reviewer suggestions can help the editor identify complementary expertise.

Be Transparent When a Potential Relationship Exists

Sometimes the most qualified expert may have a previous professional connection with one of the authors, yet the relationship may not clearly fall within a journal’s exclusion criteria.

A Practical Ethical Screening Checklist

Before suggesting each reviewer, authors can apply the following questions:

Expertise: Does this person have demonstrable knowledge of the manuscript’s topic or methodology?

Independence: Is the reviewer sufficiently independent from all authors?

Collaboration: Has the reviewer recently co-authored, collaborated, or shared closely connected research activities with an author?

Institution: Does the reviewer currently share an institutional affiliation with an author?

Conflict: Is there any personal, professional, financial, or competitive interest that could affect—or appear to affect—objectivity?

Identity: Can the editor verify the reviewer’s identity through reliable professional information?

Availability: Is the reviewer an active scholar who is reasonably likely to provide a timely and meaningful assessment?

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Several practices can undermine the credibility of reviewer suggestions.

• Suggesting Close Collaborators
• Selecting Colleagues from the Same Institution
• Recommending Only Well-Known Names
• Providing Unverified Contact Details
• Choosing Reviewers Expected to Be Favorable
• Ignoring Relationships with Co-Authors
• Assuming Suggested Reviewers Will Be Used