How to select appropriate peer reviewers during journal review?

Selecting suitable peer reviewers for journal submissions involves carefully identifying experts whose scholarly background aligns with the manuscript's topic, methodology, and scope. This foundational step ensures reviews provide credible, constructive feedback crucial for rigorous editorial decisions. Matching the reviewer's demonstrated expertise precisely to the manuscript's subject matter is paramount. Editors must verify the reviewer's qualifications, typically through publication history, affiliation, and professional recognition. Crucially, potential conflicts of interest—such as recent collaborations, institutional connections, or known adversarial relationships with authors—must be thoroughly assessed and eliminated. Furthermore, the reviewer should possess a proven track record of delivering timely, thorough, and balanced evaluations. Considering diversity in perspectives, geographic location, and career stage can enhance the review process's richness and fairness. Editors typically follow a systematic process: first identifying potential reviewers using databases (e.g., PubMed, Web of Science), journal submission systems, or personal knowledge; second, examining the candidates' recent publications and expertise relevance to confirm suitability; and third, meticulously screening each candidate for any conflicts of interest using the manuscript's author list and affiliations before extending the invitation. This careful selection upholds review quality, minimizes bias, and supports accurate manuscript evaluation.