What Is the Process for Selecting Reviewers for Manuscripts Submitted to Scientific Journals?

By Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

For many researchers, one of the least visible stages of journal publishing begins after the manuscript disappears into the submission system: what is the process for selecting reviewers for manuscripts submitted to scientific journals? Authors may see status labels such as “with editor,” “reviewers invited,” or “under review,” but those short phrases hide a substantial editorial task. Before peer review can begin, an editor normally has to decide whether the manuscript should be reviewed at all, identify appropriate experts, consider potential conflicts of interest, invite suitable candidates, manage declined invitations, and assemble a reviewer group capable of assessing the work fairly.

Reviewer selection matters because scientific manuscripts are rarely simple enough to be assessed on subject keywords alone. A study may combine a specialized experimental method, statistical modelling, a clinical application, and a narrow biological mechanism. One reviewer may understand the scientific question exceptionally well but not the analytical method. Another may be an excellent methodologist but only moderately familiar with the application area. The editor therefore tries to build an appropriate combination of expertise rather than merely find people who have published papers containing the same terms.

The process also differs among journals. Some publications use professional in-house editors, while others rely heavily on academic editors or editorial-board members. Some routinely seek two or three reports, while others may use a different number depending on the manuscript, article type, field, and journal policy. ICMJE guidance emphasizes that journals should have systems for selecting appropriate reviewers and should clearly describe their peer-review processes because practices vary among publications.

Authors may also wonder whether suggested reviewers influence the process, whether editors contact researchers cited in the manuscript, what happens if every invited reviewer declines, or whether a prominent professor is automatically preferred over an early-career specialist. The answers are more nuanced than they may initially appear.

Understanding this workflow cannot tell you exactly who will review your paper, but it can make journal status updates less mysterious and help you prepare a manuscript that can be evaluated efficiently. It also helps researchers understand the ethical boundaries surrounding reviewer suggestions, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and communication with editors.

Quick Answer: What Is the Process for Selecting Reviewers for Manuscripts Submitted to Scientific Journals?

The process usually begins after an editor decides that the manuscript is suitable for external peer review. The handling editor examines the paper’s topic, methods, scope, and specialized areas, then identifies researchers who appear qualified to evaluate those aspects. Journals may use editorial knowledge, publication databases, reference lists, previous reviewer records, manuscript keywords, author suggestions, and reviewer-search systems to build a candidate list. Nature, for example, states that once a paper is selected for peer review, its assigned editor chooses referees, sometimes in consultation with editors covering related fields.

Potential reviewers are then screened for suitability. Expertise is essential, but it is not the only consideration. Editors may consider whether a candidate has relevant recent work, appropriate methodological knowledge, possible relationships with the authors, institutional overlap, competing interests, availability, previous reviewing performance, and whether the planned reviewer group provides sufficiently complementary perspectives.

The journal invites selected candidates rather than automatically assigning them. Invitees normally receive enough information to decide whether the manuscript fits their expertise and whether they can complete the review within the requested period. A researcher may decline because of workload, lack of specialist knowledge, a competing interest, or another legitimate reason. The editor may therefore need to invite several people before obtaining enough reviewers.

Once sufficient reviewers accept, they assess the manuscript and submit reports. Reviewers advise the editor; they generally do not make the final publication decision. ICMJE notes that a journal is not obligated to follow a reviewer recommendation and that the editor remains ultimately responsible for deciding what the journal publishes.

Key Takeaways

• Reviewer selection normally begins only after the manuscript passes the journal’s initial editorial assessment.
• Editors select reviewers primarily for relevant scientific, methodological, or technical expertise.
• A strong reviewer team may combine specialists with different but complementary areas of knowledge.
• Potential conflicts of interest, professional relationships, and institutional connections may affect whether a candidate is appropriate.
• Authors may sometimes suggest or exclude reviewers, but editors are not necessarily required to follow those requests.
• Reviewer invitations can be declined, so an editor may need to approach considerably more researchers than the final number who review the manuscript.
• Peer reviewers provide expert recommendations, while the journal editor normally retains responsibility for the editorial decision.

What This Page Covers

This guide explains:

• How a manuscript moves from editorial screening to reviewer selection
• Where editors find potential peer reviewers
• What qualifications editors may look for in reviewers
• How expertise, conflicts of interest, independence, and availability are considered
• How author-suggested and author-opposed reviewers may be handled
• Why reviewer selection can take longer than researchers expect
• What authors can ethically do to support a smooth peer-review process

Table of Contents

1. Methodology and Academic Sources
2. Where Reviewer Selection Fits Into the Journal Workflow
3. Who Actually Chooses the Reviewers?
4. The Reviewer-Selection Process Step by Step
5. What Editors Look for in a Reviewer
6. How Journals Find Potential Reviewers
7. How Conflicts of Interest Are Evaluated
8. What Happens With Author-Suggested Reviewers?
9. How Many Reviewers Are Usually Selected?
10. Why Reviewer Selection Sometimes Takes Time
11. Do Reviewers Decide Whether a Paper Is Accepted?
12. Practical Reviewer-Selection Examples
13. Common Misunderstandings
14. What Authors Can Do Before Submission
15. Reviewer-Selection Checklist for Researchers
16. How Contentxprtz Can Support Manuscript Preparation
17. Summary
18. FAQs
19. About the Author
20. Conclusion

Methodology and Academic Sources

This guide synthesizes established peer-review principles with current information published by organizations and journal publishers involved in research publication. Important reference points include the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidance on peer review, COPE ethical guidance for reviewers, Nature Portfolio editorial and peer-review policies, and Elsevier information about editorial reviewer-search systems.

The article also follows the supplied Contentxprtz brief’s requirement for academic, practical, evidence-aware, and ethically responsible guidance rather than promises about journal acceptance. Researchers remain responsible for their research, claims, methodology, citations, interpretation, and final submission, while legitimate editing support should preserve the researcher’s intellectual contribution.

Specific reviewer-selection procedures differ among disciplines and journals. Authors should therefore check the peer-review policy and author instructions of the journal to which they are submitting.

Where Reviewer Selection Fits Into the Journal Workflow

Reviewer selection is generally not the first thing that happens after submission.

A typical manuscript may move through a sequence similar to:

Submission → administrative checks → editorial assessment → decision to peer review → reviewer identification → reviewer invitations → reviewer acceptance → external review → editorial decision

The exact terminology varies.

For example, Scientific Reports states that a manuscript is first assigned to an Editorial Board member, who determines whether it is appropriate for the journal. Manuscripts considered within scope and technically and scientifically suitable on initial assessment are then sent to external reviewers.

Nature similarly describes an initial editorial decision about whether a submitted Article should enter peer review before referees are chosen.

This distinction is important for authors. A manuscript status such as “with editor” does not necessarily mean reviewers are already reading your paper. The editor may still be assessing journal fit, novelty, significance, reporting quality, scope, or other journal-specific criteria.

A manuscript can also be declined without external review. This is commonly called an editorial rejection, desk rejection, or rejection without peer review.

Who Actually Chooses the Reviewers?

The handling editor or an appropriate member of the editorial team usually has responsibility for selecting reviewers.

Depending on the journal, this person might be:

• An editor-in-chief
• Associate editor
• Academic editor
• Section editor
• Editorial Board member
• Professional in-house editor

Some journals combine these models.

The editor may also consult colleagues when a paper crosses disciplinary boundaries. Nature explains that its assigned editor selects referees and may consult editors who handle related fields when necessary.

Editorial-management software can support discovery, but technology does not eliminate editorial judgment. Elsevier’s current reviewer-finding tools, for example, can generate candidates using manuscript metadata and Scopus-linked researcher information while flagging or filtering certain potential conflicts.

The practical principle is simple:

A reviewer-search tool may generate names; the editor still has to decide which candidates are appropriate for the manuscript.

The Reviewer-Selection Process Step by Step

Step 1: The Editor Determines Whether the Manuscript Needs External Review

Before selecting reviewers, the editor normally evaluates whether the manuscript should proceed to peer review.

Questions may include:

• Is the paper within the journal’s scope?
• Is the manuscript type appropriate?
• Is the scientific question potentially suitable for the journal?
• Does the submission meet essential editorial requirements?
• Is there enough potential value to justify external expert assessment?

A decision not to obtain reviews is not necessarily a declaration that the science is worthless. Journal selection criteria can include audience, scope, editorial priorities, originality, and other publication-specific considerations. ICMJE explicitly notes that journals are not obligated to send every submission for peer review.

Step 2: The Editor Maps the Expertise Needed

If the paper will be reviewed, the editor needs to understand what kind of expertise is required.

Suppose a manuscript examines an AI-supported diagnostic tool for detecting retinal disease. Relevant reviewer expertise might include:

• Ophthalmology
• Diagnostic-study design
• Machine learning
• Medical imaging
• Biostatistics
• Clinical implementation

It may be unrealistic to find one researcher who is equally expert in all six areas.

The editor may therefore choose reviewers whose strengths complement one another.

This is one reason reviewer selection is more sophisticated than matching the manuscript title with a researcher’s job title.

Step 3: The Editor Builds a Candidate Reviewer List

Potential reviewers can come from several sources:

• The editor’s knowledge of the field
• Researchers who have published on closely related topics
• Relevant specialists cited in the manuscript
• Journal reviewer databases
• Editorial Board recommendations
• Bibliographic databases
• Reviewer-discovery tools
• Previous reviewers for related submissions
• Authors’ reviewer suggestions, where permitted

Elsevier’s current Editorial Manager integration, for example, can search Scopus-linked information using manuscript metadata, researcher records, publication histories, keywords, and other signals to generate candidates.

However, database matching should be treated as discovery rather than proof that someone is an appropriate reviewer.

Step 4: Candidate Expertise Is Assessed

An editor may examine whether the candidate has sufficiently relevant knowledge to evaluate the manuscript.

This may involve reviewing:

• Recent publications
• Subject specialization
• Research methodology
• Study populations
• Technical methods
• Statistical knowledge
• Professional experience
• Previous peer-review activity

Scientific Reports states directly that editors select peer reviewers primarily because of their knowledge of the subject matter or methods relevant to the manuscript.

A famous researcher is not necessarily the best reviewer. A less senior scholar who works directly on the manuscript’s precise methodology may sometimes be more informative.

Step 5: Independence and Possible Conflicts Are Considered

A technically brilliant expert may still be inappropriate if circumstances could reasonably interfere with an independent evaluation.

Potential concerns can include:

• Recent co-authorship with an author
• Current institutional affiliation with an author
• Close personal relationships
• Direct professional competition
• Financial interests
• Supervisory relationships
• Strong involvement in closely related unpublished work
• Other relationships that could affect—or appear to affect—objectivity

Specific definitions vary by journal.

Elsevier’s reviewer-finding system, for instance, describes filtering researchers who recently co-authored with manuscript authors and highlighting candidates with certain institutional or geographic connections.

COPE guidance also emphasizes that reviewers should disclose potential competing interests and seek guidance from the journal when uncertain about whether a conflict could affect their ability to provide a fair assessment.

Step 6: The Editor Considers the Reviewer Group as a Whole

Good reviewer selection is not only about evaluating individuals.

The editor may ask whether the combined reviewer panel provides adequate coverage.

For example:

• Reviewer 1: specialist in the disease mechanism
• Reviewer 2: specialist in the experimental technique
• Reviewer 3: specialist in statistical analysis

This combination may provide a more useful evaluation than three experts whose publications are almost identical.

Editors may also seek broader diversity in the scholarly community. ICMJE advises editors to engage a broad and diverse array of reviewers and other participants in academic publishing.

Step 7: Review Invitations Are Sent

Selected candidates receive invitations.

Depending on journal policy and peer-review model, an invitation may contain information such as:

• Manuscript title
• Abstract
• Article type
• Journal name
• Expected review deadline
• Confidentiality requirements
• Competing-interest requirements
• Link to accept or decline

Researchers should accept only when they believe they possess appropriate expertise, can conduct the review objectively, and can meet the requested timeline.

Step 8: Declined Invitations Are Replaced

Reviewer selection frequently involves multiple rounds of invitations.

An invited researcher may decline because:

• The manuscript is outside their expertise
• They are unavailable
• They have a conflict of interest
• They are on leave
• They have too many existing reviews
• The deadline is unsuitable

The editor then approaches another candidate.

This helps explain why a manuscript may remain in a “reviewers invited” or similar stage for some time even though no problem exists with the submission itself.

Step 9: Enough Reviewers Accept

Once the journal has enough suitable reviewers, formal external evaluation proceeds.

There is no universal number for every scientific journal.

Nature states that most papers it sends for review go to two or three referees, although some receive more and occasionally one.

Other journals establish their own policies.

Step 10: Reviewer Reports Return to the Editor

Reviewers provide assessments and recommendations.

Their evaluation may address:

• Scientific rationale
• Methodological validity
• Interpretation
• Presentation of results
• Statistical analysis
• Reporting completeness
• Limitations
• Literature context
• Whether conclusions are supported

The editor then interprets the reports rather than merely counting reviewer votes.

ICMJE stresses that reviewers provide critical assessment but the journal editor retains responsibility for publication decisions.

What Do Editors Look for in a Manuscript Reviewer?

A suitable reviewer generally needs a combination of expertise, independence, reliability, and practical availability.

Selection Factor	What the Editor May Consider	Why It Matters
Subject expertise	Research directly related to the manuscript	Helps assess scientific context and contribution
Methodological expertise	Experience with the study design or techniques	Helps identify technical strengths and weaknesses
Current knowledge	Recent involvement in the research area	Reduces reliance on outdated assumptions
Independence	Absence of problematic competing interests	Supports impartial evaluation
Reviewing ability	Capacity to give rigorous, constructive feedback	Produces a more useful report
Availability	Ability to complete the review reasonably promptly	Prevents unnecessary delays
Complementarity	Expertise different from other selected reviewers	Broadens assessment
Reliability	Appropriate past interaction with the journal, where known	Helps editors manage the process efficiently

No single factor automatically determines suitability.

A reviewer with a prestigious title but limited familiarity with the manuscript’s actual methods may be less useful than a more specialized researcher.

Is Academic Seniority Required?

Not necessarily.

Peer review requires relevant expertise, not simply senior rank. Wiley’s reviewer guidance notes that researchers at different career stages can review when they possess sufficient expertise in the relevant area.

Journals may nevertheless differ in how they evaluate reviewer experience.

For early-career researchers, participation in peer review should occur within journal rules and appropriate ethical boundaries. A reviewer who wants help from a trainee or colleague should not simply share a confidential manuscript without permission. ICMJE states that reviewers obtaining assistance should acknowledge the contributor and maintain manuscript confidentiality.

How Do Journals Find Potential Reviewers?

Authors sometimes imagine that editors maintain a fixed list of scientists from which every reviewer is chosen. Some journals do have substantial reviewer databases, but reviewer discovery can be much broader.

Publication Literature

Editors may identify researchers who publish in the manuscript’s specific subject or methodological area.

This can be useful because publication history provides evidence of relevant research activity.

References in the Manuscript

Researchers cited in the paper may sometimes be relevant candidates because their work overlaps with the manuscript.

However, being cited does not automatically qualify someone as a reviewer.

The editor still needs to consider:

• Degree of expertise
• Independence
• Possible conflicts
• Availability
• Whether another specialist would provide a more balanced assessment

Editorial Experience

Editors who regularly handle papers in a particular discipline may know many researchers working in that field.

Professional editorial judgment can therefore be an important source of candidates.

Reviewer Databases and Search Tools

Publishing platforms may contain previous-reviewer records or integrate researcher-discovery databases.

Elsevier currently describes a Scopus-supported discovery system that can identify and rank potential reviewers using manuscript metadata and researcher information while providing filters and conflict-related indicators.

Automated recommendations can improve discovery, but an algorithm cannot by itself determine all relevant interpersonal, scientific, or ethical considerations.

Author Suggestions

Some journals invite authors to propose reviewers.

Scientific Reports, for example, permits authors to suggest potential reviewers while explaining that such recommendations are not necessarily followed.

The editor remains responsible for selection.

How Are Conflicts of Interest Evaluated?

A competing interest does not always mean intentional bias. The concern is whether a relationship or circumstance could affect—or reasonably raise questions about—the independence of the review.

Examples may include financial, professional, collaborative, institutional, or personal relationships.

Reviewers themselves also have an ethical responsibility to disclose relevant conflicts. COPE guidance advises peer reviewers to declare potential competing interests and seek journal advice when uncertain.

Journals may apply specific exclusion windows or definitions, so authors should avoid assuming that one conflict rule applies universally.

Example

Imagine that Dr. Rao is highly qualified to review a manuscript but co-authored a paper with the corresponding author recently.

Another researcher, Dr. Kim, has comparable expertise but no apparent recent collaboration with the author group.

Depending on journal policy and the nature of the relationships, the editor may prefer Dr. Kim because independent assessment is easier to establish.

What Happens With Author-Suggested Reviewers?

Author suggestions can help editors identify specialists, particularly in highly specialized or interdisciplinary areas.

However, suggestion does not mean selection.

Scientific Reports explicitly states that author suggestions can be useful but are not always followed.

Authors should therefore recommend reviewers ethically.

Appropriate candidates should generally:

• Possess genuine subject expertise
• Be capable of independent assessment
• Have verifiable professional identities
• Not be selected simply because the author expects a favourable opinion

Researchers should never invent reviewer identities, supply misleading contact details, impersonate reviewers, or attempt to manipulate the review process.

If the journal asks why a suggested reviewer is appropriate, a useful explanation might focus on expertise:

“Dr. X has published extensively on single-cell analytical methods directly relevant to the methodology used in this manuscript.”

That is much more useful than simply stating that the person is a respected scientist.

Can Authors Ask That Someone Not Review the Paper?

Some journals allow authors to identify researchers they would prefer not to serve as reviewers.

Scientific Reports allows authors to name a limited number of scientists they wish to exclude.

Policies vary, and the editorial office generally retains final authority.

Where an exclusion request is allowed, authors should have a legitimate professional reason rather than using the mechanism to remove every researcher likely to offer rigorous criticism.

How Many Reviewers Are Usually Selected?

There is no universal number applicable to every journal or manuscript.

Two or three external reviewers are common in many settings, but practices vary with:

• Journal policy
• Article type
• Discipline
• Manuscript complexity
• Reviewer availability
• Need for specialist statistical or methodological input
• Disagreement among initial reviewers

Nature states that most externally reviewed papers are sent to two or three referees, with some sent to more and occasionally one.

An editor may also seek an additional opinion when existing reports conflict strongly or when a specialized concern emerges.

Why Can Reviewer Selection Take So Long?

Reviewer selection can take time because finding a qualified person is different from finding a qualified person who is independent, available, willing, and responsive at that particular moment.

Consider a manuscript requiring expertise in an uncommon analytical technique.

The editor may identify six strong candidates.

• Candidate 1 has a conflict.
• Candidate 2 is unavailable.
• Candidate 3 does not respond.
• Candidate 4 says the topic is outside their precise expertise.
• Candidates 5 and 6 accept.

The author eventually sees two reviewer reports, but the editor had to work through six candidates.

This is why review status should not be interpreted too literally without understanding the journal’s terminology.

Do Reviewers Decide Whether a Manuscript Is Accepted?

Usually, no. Reviewers advise; editors decide.

This is one of the most important distinctions for first-time authors.

A reviewer might recommend:

• Acceptance
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Rejection

But the editor evaluates the report in context.

ICMJE specifically states that journals do not have to follow reviewer recommendations and that editors are ultimately responsible for selecting journal content.

Scientific Reports likewise describes its Editorial Board member making the decision after considering reviewer reports.

Why might the editor disagree with a reviewer?

A reviewer could:

• Misunderstand part of the paper
• Request work outside the study’s reasonable scope
• Focus excessively on a minor issue
• Miss a serious methodological concern
• Evaluate a question outside their strongest expertise
• Disagree with another expert

Editorial judgment is therefore central to peer review.

Practical Examples of Reviewer Selection

Example 1: Molecular Biology Manuscript With a Specialized Imaging Method

Situation

A manuscript investigates a signalling pathway using an advanced microscopy technique.

Possible reviewer strategy

The editor might select:

• A researcher specializing in the biological pathway
• A researcher specializing in the imaging technique
• Potentially another expert in the wider disease or cellular context

Why this works

Three researchers studying the same biological pathway might all miss a technical weakness in the imaging procedure.

Complementary expertise improves the probability that both the scientific question and the methodology receive meaningful scrutiny.

---

Example 2: Clinical Study Requiring Statistical Expertise

Situation

A manuscript reports a multicentre observational study using complex survival modelling.

Reviewer-selection challenge

A clinical specialist may understand the medical significance but have limited expertise in advanced modelling.

Possible approach

The editor could obtain:

• A clinical subject-matter review
• A methodological or biostatistical review

Why this works

Reviewer selection should reflect what must actually be evaluated, not merely the department in which the research was conducted.

---

Example 3: Interdisciplinary Artificial-Intelligence Manuscript

Situation

Researchers submit an AI model intended to predict disease progression using electronic health-record data.

Relevant expertise

The manuscript spans:

• Machine learning
• Clinical medicine
• Data quality
• Validation methodology
• Potential implementation

Possible reviewer group

One reviewer may focus on model development, another on clinical relevance, and another on validation and statistical methodology.

Practical lesson

Interdisciplinary papers can be harder to assign because a journal may need several complementary reviewers rather than one obvious subject expert.

---

Example 4: Author Suggests a Highly Relevant Specialist

Situation

An author proposes a researcher whose publications closely match the manuscript.

What the editor does

The editor does not simply send an invitation.

They may still examine:

• Collaboration history
• Institutional connections
• Research overlap
• Other possible competing interests
• Whether the proposed person’s expertise complements the rest of the reviewer group

Practical lesson

A reviewer suggestion is a candidate recommendation, not an entitlement.

Common Misunderstandings About Reviewer Selection

“The editor always chooses the most famous researchers.”

Not necessarily.

Relevance can be more important than fame.

“If I suggest reviewers, the journal must use them.”

No.

Journal policies may permit suggestions without requiring editors to follow them.

“If my paper is with reviewers, acceptance is likely.”

Not necessarily.

Entering peer review means the manuscript has reached an important stage, but the reviewers may identify substantial concerns.

“Two positive recommendations guarantee acceptance.”

They do not.

The editor retains responsibility for the publication decision.

“A long reviewer-selection stage means something is wrong with my manuscript.”

Not automatically.

It may simply reflect invitation declines, limited availability, specialized expertise requirements, or difficulty assembling the appropriate reviewer group.

“Reviewers must know who the authors are.”

Not in every peer-review model.

Journals may use single-anonymized, double-anonymized, open, or other review arrangements. ICMJE notes that peer-review models and reviewer practices differ across journals.

What Can Authors Do Before Submission?

Authors usually cannot control reviewer selection, but they can reduce avoidable complications.

1. Choose an Appropriate Journal

Poor journal fit can prevent the manuscript from reaching peer review at all.

Compare your paper with:

• Journal aims and scope
• Recent publications
• Accepted article types
• Audience
• Methodological expectations

2. Describe the Manuscript Clearly

A precise title, abstract, keywords, and cover letter can help editors understand what expertise the paper requires.

If the manuscript is genuinely interdisciplinary, make that clear.

3. Follow Reviewer-Suggestion Instructions Carefully

If reviewer suggestions are requested:

• Choose real experts
• Confirm names and affiliations
• Use institutional contact information where expected
• Avoid inappropriate collaborators
• Explain expertise when the system permits

Never attempt to influence peer review through misleading reviewer information.

4. Disclose Relevant Relationships Properly

Complete competing-interest and related-work declarations according to journal instructions.

Transparency reduces confusion later.

5. Make the Manuscript Reviewable

Even a strong scientific project can be difficult to review when its presentation is unclear.

Before submission, check:

• Is the research question explicit?
• Are methods described sufficiently?
• Are tables and figures understandable?
• Do results match the methods?
• Are conclusions supported by the reported evidence?
• Are limitations transparent?
• Are references accurate?
• Is terminology consistent?

Professional research paper editing or academic editing may be useful when a manuscript needs clarity, structural consistency, or language refinement before submission.

Reviewer-Selection Checklist for Researchers

Before submitting, ask:

• Have I chosen a journal whose scope genuinely matches my manuscript?
• Does my title accurately communicate the scientific topic?
• Does the abstract make the methodology understandable?
• Have I identified the disciplines involved in an interdisciplinary study?
• Have I followed the journal’s reviewer-suggestion instructions?
• Are any suggested reviewers genuine independent experts?
• Have I avoided inappropriate personal or collaborative connections?
• Have I followed the journal’s competing-interest requirements?
• Are author names, affiliations, references, and declarations accurate?
• Is the manuscript clear enough for reviewers to evaluate efficiently?
• Have I checked the journal’s published peer-review policy?
• Am I prepared for reviewers to raise methodological or interpretive concerns?

Confidentiality and Responsible Peer Review

Submitted manuscripts are generally treated as confidential materials.

ICMJE describes submitted manuscripts as privileged communications and requires editors and reviewers to protect their confidentiality. It also cautions that using AI systems during manuscript processing or peer review can create confidentiality concerns when secure handling is not assured.

This issue has become especially relevant as generative AI tools become more common.

Reviewers should follow the specific journal’s AI policy rather than uploading confidential unpublished manuscripts to external tools simply for convenience. ICMJE’s current guidance likewise states that reviewers must follow journal policy regarding AI and protect confidential manuscript information.

Authors should also avoid trying to identify anonymous reviewers or contacting suspected reviewers during an active review.

How Contentxprtz Can Help Before Peer Review

Reviewer selection itself belongs to the journal, so an ethical manuscript-support service cannot promise to influence who reviews a paper or guarantee the outcome of peer review.

What professional support can do is help ensure that the manuscript communicates the research clearly enough for editors and reviewers to understand what was done and why it matters.

Depending on the manuscript, Contentxprtz support may include:

• Language and academic editing
• Structural consistency review
• Clarity of research objectives and arguments
• Consistency between methods, results, and discussion
• Figure and table presentation review
• Reference and formatting checks
• Journal-specific formatting assistance
• Response-to-reviewer language support after peer review

Researchers preparing a scientific manuscript can explore the Contentxprtz research paper editing service when they want professional editorial support while retaining responsibility for their research, claims, analysis, and final submission.

Editing should strengthen scholarly communication—not replace the researcher’s intellectual contribution.

Summary: What Is the Process for Selecting Reviewers for Manuscripts Submitted to Scientific Journals?

Reviewer selection normally begins after an editor decides that a scientific manuscript should enter external peer review.

The editor first identifies the kinds of expertise needed to evaluate the work. Potential reviewers may then be found through editorial knowledge, recent publications, reference lists, journal databases, bibliographic tools, previous reviewer records, editorial recommendations, and author suggestions.

Candidates are evaluated not only for subject expertise but also for methodological relevance, independence, potential competing interests, availability, and how well their expertise complements that of other reviewers.

Invitations are then sent. Because researchers may decline or fail to respond, editors frequently need to invite more people than the number who ultimately review the manuscript.

Once sufficient experts accept, the paper enters formal review. Reviewers provide critical assessments and recommendations, but the editor generally remains responsible for the publication decision.

The process varies across journals, so authors should always read the specific publication’s peer-review and author guidelines rather than assuming that one universal workflow applies.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the process for selecting reviewers for manuscripts submitted to scientific journals?

The process usually starts after the handling editor decides that a manuscript is suitable for external review. The editor identifies the scientific and methodological expertise needed, searches for appropriate researchers, assesses their suitability and independence, and sends review invitations.

Potential reviewers may be identified from publications, databases, editorial experience, reference lists, previous journal records, reviewer-search systems, or author suggestions. Editors may also screen candidates for possible competing interests and consider whether several reviewers together provide balanced expertise.

Invited researchers can accept or decline. Consequently, the editor may need to contact several candidates before obtaining the required number of reviewers.

Once reports are submitted, reviewers advise the editor rather than automatically determining the outcome. ICMJE states that editors retain ultimate responsibility for journal content and do not have to follow reviewer recommendations.

2. What is the most important criterion when editors choose peer reviewers?

Relevant expertise is usually fundamental.

A reviewer should understand enough of the manuscript’s subject matter, methodology, or specialized techniques to provide a meaningful scientific assessment. Scientific Reports describes in-depth knowledge of the relevant subject matter or methods as a primary reason editors select reviewers.

However, expertise alone does not settle the decision.

Editors may also need to consider competing interests, independence, availability, previous reviewing experience, and whether the candidate’s expertise complements that of other reviewers.

For an interdisciplinary manuscript, the best solution may therefore be several specialists covering different dimensions of the study.

3. Can authors choose who reviews their manuscript?

Generally, authors cannot choose the final reviewers.

Some journals allow authors to suggest potential reviewers, but the editorial team normally decides whether those people are appropriate.

Scientific Reports, for example, allows potential reviewers to be suggested while making clear that those recommendations are not always followed.

If a journal asks for suggestions, authors should recommend genuine, appropriately independent experts and follow the journal’s conflict-of-interest requirements.

Reviewer suggestions should never be used to manipulate the evaluation process.

4. Can I ask a journal not to use a particular reviewer?

Some journals allow authors to request exclusion of specified researchers.

Policies vary considerably. Scientific Reports, for instance, permits authors to identify a limited number of scientists they believe should not review the manuscript.

Where exclusion requests are permitted, authors should use them responsibly. Legitimate reasons might include circumstances that raise a serious concern about independence or confidentiality.

The journal may evaluate the request according to its own policy, and authors should not assume that every exclusion request will automatically determine the editor’s choice.

5. How many reviewers does a scientific manuscript normally have?

There is no universal number.

Many journals seek approximately two or three external opinions, but the number depends on journal policy, discipline, manuscript complexity, article type, and availability.

Nature states that most of the papers it sends for peer review go to two or three referees, although some receive more and occasionally one.

Additional reviewers may also be recruited when specialist methodological assessment is required or existing reports disagree significantly.

Authors should therefore check the journal’s published peer-review policy rather than treating a particular reviewer number as an academic rule.

6. Why does it sometimes take weeks to find reviewers?

Finding reviewers can take time because suitable candidates must not only have relevant expertise; they must also be independent, available, willing to review, and able to meet the journal’s deadline.

Editors may invite one candidate who declines, another who does not respond, another who declares a competing interest, and only then find researchers who accept.

Highly specialized or interdisciplinary manuscripts can be especially difficult because the number of researchers with appropriate expertise may be limited.

A lengthy reviewer-selection stage therefore does not automatically indicate that something is wrong with the manuscript.

7. Can someone who is cited in my manuscript become a reviewer?

Potentially, yes, depending on journal policy and circumstances.

Researchers cited in a manuscript may be relevant because their work demonstrates expertise in the subject. However, citation alone does not make someone automatically suitable.

The editor may still evaluate whether the researcher has the appropriate methodological knowledge, whether any competing interest exists, and whether that person would complement other reviewers.

Editors may also prefer another specialist whose expertise better matches a particular aspect of the submission.

8. Do reviewers know the identities of the authors?

It depends on the journal’s peer-review model.

Different journals use different arrangements, including models in which reviewers can see author identities and models designed to conceal author identities during review. Some publications use more open approaches.

ICMJE notes that journals vary in whether peer review is open or anonymized and recommends that journals explain their peer-review procedures transparently.

Authors should therefore consult the specific journal’s policy rather than assuming that all scientific peer review uses the same anonymity model.

9. Do positive reviewer recommendations guarantee that my manuscript will be accepted?

No.

Reviewer recommendations are important expert inputs, but they normally do not guarantee the editorial decision.

The handling editor may consider the reviewers’ arguments, the journal’s scope and standards, the manuscript’s revisions, ethical issues, and other editorial considerations.

ICMJE explicitly states that journals are not obligated to follow reviewer recommendations and that the editor ultimately has responsibility for selecting journal content.

This is why peer review should be understood as an advisory evaluation process rather than a simple vote.

10. When should I consider professional editing before journal submission?

Professional editing may be useful when the research is complete but the manuscript still has problems with clarity, academic language, organization, consistency, journal formatting, or communication of the methods and findings.

Editing is especially relevant for authors writing in an additional language or researchers working on complicated interdisciplinary manuscripts.

However, ethical academic editing should improve communication rather than fabricate research, invent references, alter results, or replace the researcher’s intellectual contribution.

Researchers remain responsible for their methodology, data, analysis, interpretation, citations, claims, and final submission. Those seeking clarity and language support can consider Contentxprtz research paper editing services before submitting the manuscript.

About the Author

Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

Dr. Aanya Mehta is a research-oriented writer and professional communicator with a strong focus on accuracy, clarity, and evidence-based insight. Her work combines analytical thinking with accessible writing, helping readers understand complex business topics through well-researched, credible, and practical content.

Conclusion

Understanding reviewer selection makes one of the most opaque parts of scientific publishing easier to interpret.

After a manuscript passes initial editorial assessment, the editor normally identifies what scientific and methodological expertise is necessary. Potential reviewers may then be found through editorial knowledge, published literature, reviewer databases, research-discovery systems, reference lists, professional networks, previous journal activity, or author suggestions.

The strongest candidate is not necessarily the most famous scientist. What matters is whether the researcher has appropriate expertise, sufficient independence, relevant methodological understanding, availability, and the ability to provide a rigorous assessment.

Editors may also need several reviewers with complementary strengths. A complex paper might require one specialist who understands the scientific problem, another who can scrutinize the methodology, and another who can assess statistics or another highly technical dimension.

Authors cannot control this process, nor should they attempt to. What researchers can control is the quality and transparency of their submission: choosing an appropriate journal, accurately describing the study, following reviewer-suggestion rules, disclosing relevant relationships, checking references, presenting methods clearly, and ensuring conclusions remain supported by the evidence.

Self-review may be sufficient when the manuscript is already clear, structurally consistent, linguistically polished, and aligned with journal instructions. When language, structure, consistency, or presentation makes the research harder to evaluate, professional academic editing may provide useful support.

Contentxprtz offers research paper editing support for researchers who want to improve manuscript clarity and scholarly communication while retaining responsibility for the research and final submission.

Ultimately, reviewer selection is designed to connect a scientific manuscript with researchers capable of critically evaluating its most important dimensions. Understanding that principle helps authors approach peer review with more realistic expectations—and concentrate their effort where it matters most: making the research transparent, rigorous, readable, and responsibly communicated.

“At Contentxprtz, we don’t just edit; we help ideas reach their fullest potential.”