Sourcing peer reviewers for your journal

Intro

Peer review is the single most important process to guarantee integrity in scholarly communication. Independence, objectivity and transparency (all journal records may be audited at any time) of the peer review process are essential conditions.

There are many types of peer review: open, single-, double-anonymous etc. No matter which type a journal chooses, peer review should be clearly explained in the journal’s editorial policies.  

Peer review should strive to be constructive and improve the quality of a paper. The selection of appropriate peer reviewers is fundamental to this end.

When considering potential peer reviewers for a paper, keep issues of diversity and inclusion in mind. Is the pool of peer reviewers diverse and inclusive or are there steps you can take to improve the process in this way?

A paper should only be sent to peer reviewers after editorial review has determined that it falls within the scope of the journal and its content and writing quality meet the basic standards of the journal. 

How to source reviewers

There are many ways to source appropriate reviewers for a paper. The editor’s best judgement is the main guide to determine who may or may not be an appropriate reviewer. If you have any other suggestions, please, let us know.

1. The journal’s network (e.g. editors, section editors, editorial board members)

As editors of the journal, you, section editors, managing editors and the journal’s editorial board members can draw from your professional network to identify appropriate reviewers. 

A group or an individualised email to editorial board members inviting suggestions for peer reviewers of specific papers is a good opportunity to maintain contact with your editorial board (as long as it is not too frequent or the only reason to ever contact them). 

2. The journal’s past publications 

Authors who have published on the same topic in your journal before are good candidates for peer review. Inviting them to review new submissions also fosters the creation of a network around the journal.

3. External databases

There are a number of external databases that may be available to an editor that could help find suitable peer reviewers. These include:

• Content aggregators: a number of free scholarly databases allow a user to search for authors, subjects, titles etc to help match related content. Finding content related to the journal submission that has been received may help to locate authors within a similar field:
  • Google Scholar and SciLit offer very large databases of published content from all subject areas.
  • JANE allows an editor to enter the title and/or abstract of an article to find similar published content (STEM focused)
• Society lists: If a society/association publishes the journal, the society/association will have a list of members where potential peer reviewers can be sourced from. Issues of use of personal data might necessitate that the society/association contacts their members first, before an editor can use their contact details to invite them to peer review.

4. Databases/pre-print services

Editors can look for potential reviewers in the pool of authors who have already published on the subject through bibliographical databases and pre-print services.

5. The journal’s database of registered reviewers

Each journal holds its own database of users. Anyone can register themselves as a reviewer at any time, if the option is turned on and the journal homepage displays it. Some journals maintain contact with their registered reviewers and occasionally invite them through a group email to log in the journal website and update their research interests so that their database remains up to date. 

6. The manuscript’s reference list

A frequently cited author is a good candidate for peer review. It depends on the editor’s judgement to decide why an author is frequently cited (is the manuscript critical of their work or building on their work) and whether they will be an appropriate peer reviewer. 

7. Enable suggested reviewers

Ubiquity offers the option to enable a field in the submission form where authors can recommend reviewers. Editors retain the right to use or not these recommendations and should exercise caution. It is not advisable to only use these recommendations. 

Tips

• Structured review forms with open and close-ended questions contribute towards more constructive comments, better structured and comprehensive reviews and ultimately, with timely return of reviewers’ recommendations. Occasionally review your journal’s review form to make sure they are up to date and still cover the needs of the journal’s article types. Different review forms can be used for different article types.
• Personalise your communication with authors and reviewers. A potential reviewer is more likely to reply to a personalised email invitation to review rather than to an automated one. Ubiquity offers template emails. Always make an effort to edit them in your own writing style and depending on whether you know the potential reviewer or not. Make sure to acknowledge reviewers’ recommendations by emailing back to thank them. This is a simple way to give thanks to a reviewer who volunteered their time and effort for the success of your journal. Think of how you respond when you receive peer review invitations and complete recommendations for other journals. 
• Be transparent about the review process and ensure you are following the editorial policies (e.g. using two external reviewers). Not following the journal policy may have negative implications on indexing applications and overall reputation.
• In cases where it is proving very difficult to find peer reviewers, a member of the journal editorial board or editorial team may be a suitable alternative. In such cases the member of the board/team acting as a reviewer must be removed from all other editorial decision making regarding the submission in question so that they cannot unduly influence the process. In extremely rare circumstances, the handling editor may be the only suitable person to offer expert peer review from within the journal and be required to be a peer reviewer. In such isolated cases, this must be done transparently and not under the guise of an anonymous reviewer. If the journal wishes to include the above option then it must be included in the public peer review policy.
• No matter what route you choose to identify appropriate reviewers in each case, do not let your guard down. Exercise due diligence. There are several ways anyone can tamper with peer review. Keep fake reviewers and issues of conflict of interest in mind.

Further resources

• COPE general guidance on Peer Review '' | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics