Many submission portals ask you to recommend potential reviewers — and many researchers either skip the field or fill it with the first names that come to mind. Both are missed opportunities. Done well, suggesting reviewers helps the editor find qualified, available experts faster, which can mean a quicker first decision on your paper.
Done badly, it raises a red flag. This guide explains how to suggest reviewers for your journal submission properly: who qualifies, who to avoid, how to find them, and the conflict-of-interest rules every editor expects you to respect.
but influential. Editors are not obliged to use your suggestions, yet a well-chosen list genuinely speeds the search for reviewers — and a poorly judged one undermines trust in your submission.
Suggested reviewers are one field among many in the portal. If you are still assembling everything else, our complete journal submission checklist shows where this step fits in the wider process.
Finding qualified, willing reviewers is one of the hardest parts of an editor's job. In specialised fields the pool of genuine experts is small, and many are overloaded with review requests. When you suggest names, you are doing some of that search work for the editor — pointing to people who already know your topic and may be more inclined to accept an invitation that arrives with context.
That is also why your suggestions carry weight only if they are credible. An editor who sees a thoughtful, independent list reads it as a sign of a researcher who understands the field and the process. A list padded with collaborators tells the opposite story. The field is optional precisely because editors decide whether to use it — so treat it as a chance to help, not a box to tick.
A strong suggestion is someone the editor can trust to give an expert, impartial assessment. In practice that means a researcher who is active in your specific area, holds an independent position, and has no personal stake in your paper.
The pattern is simple: suggest people qualified to judge the work who have no reason to favour you. Editors screen suggestions against exactly these conflict-of-interest criteria, so anyone too close to you will be set aside — and may make the editor look harder at the rest of your submission.
A serious warning
Never invent a reviewer or supply a fake email that routes back to you or a colleague. Fabricated reviewers are a well-documented form of peer-review fraud that has led to mass retractions and career damage. Editors verify suggestions — only ever recommend real, independent experts.
You usually already have a list of good candidates in your own manuscript. Start there and widen out.
"Suggest reviewers who are qualified to disagree with you — not people you hope will go easy on your paper."
One practical filter as you build the shortlist: favour researchers who are currently active rather than names from a decade ago, since editors want reviewers who are both expert and likely to respond. A scholar with a recent paper on your exact question is far more useful than a famous figure who has moved on to other topics.
Pro Tip
Most portals also let you oppose specific reviewers — for instance a direct competitor with a clear conflict. Use this sparingly and professionally, naming one or two at most, with a brief, neutral reason. Over-using it looks defensive.
Provide the number the journal asks for — commonly three to five. For each, give full name, institutional affiliation, email, and a one-line note on their relevant expertise. That short note does real work: it tells the editor at a glance why this person is qualified, which makes your suggestions easier to act on.
A worked example helps. Rather than simply listing "Dr A. Patel, University of Leeds, a.patel@leeds.ac.uk", add the reason: "Dr A. Patel, University of Leeds — published the leading recent study on the measurement approach we adapt in Section 3." The affiliation tells the editor where the reviewer sits; the note tells them why they are the right judge. Keep these notes factual and specific, and never overstate a connection between the reviewer and your work.
Finally, treat the list as you would the rest of your submission: proofread the names and emails, check each affiliation is current, and make sure no one on it would fail the conflict-of-interest test. A single fabricated or out-of-date contact can cast doubt over the whole set.
Knowing how to suggest reviewers for your journal submission is part of presenting a thoughtful, credible package. Our Submission Support service helps you build a defensible reviewer list and complete the rest of the portal correctly — always within the ethical limits of peer review. The work and the judgement stay yours; we help you present them well.
See which journals — and which active researchers — match your topic's scope.
Bring your manuscript to a free consultation and we'll help you identify qualified, independent reviewers — and complete the rest of your submission cleanly.
Book a free consultation →