Most manuscript submission systems ask authors to suggest peer reviewers and, alongside each name, give a short written reason for the suggestion. That field is not a formality: editors read it, and a vague or self-serving justification is one of the fastest ways to make a suggested reviewer look like padding rather than a genuine recommendation. This guide covers what belongs in that field, the conflict-of-interest norms authors are expected to follow, and worked example sentences you can adapt.
Where the “reason for suggestion” field actually appears
Most major submission platforms — Editorial Manager, ScholarOne, and Open Journal Systems (OJS) — collect suggested-reviewer names and justifications as a dedicated step in the online submission form, separate from the manuscript files themselves. See CASRAI’s Editorial Manager vs ScholarOne vs OJS comparison for how these systems differ.
Publisher conventions differ on whether the cover letter should also mention suggested reviewers. Elsevier’s own author guidance states a cover letter “should not include funding information, author declarations, or suggested or opposed reviewers” — that information belongs in the submission system’s dedicated fields instead. Springer Nature takes the opposite position: its guidance describes the cover letter as the place where authors can “recommend or exclude reviewers (including the reasons why).” There is no single universal convention, so check the target journal’s specific author instructions before deciding where to put your reasoning — see CASRAI’s Cover Letter for Journal Submission entry and worked Journal Cover Letter example for how the two approaches differ in practice.
Whichever field it goes in, one fact does not change: under the ICMJE recommendations, editors select the reviewers who actually review a manuscript, and a journal is under no obligation to invite — or follow the recommendations of — any reviewer an author suggests. A suggestion is an input to the editor’s decision, not a guarantee. See CASRAI’s Peer Review guide for how the editorial decision process works more broadly.
What makes a justification strong: expertise match, not status
Editors are trying to solve a specific problem — finding someone qualified to assess this manuscript’s particular claims and methods — and a justification should help them see that fit quickly. The weakest justifications lean on a reviewer’s seniority, reputation, or general fame in the field (“a leading expert in the field,” “well known for their work on X”) without saying anything about how that expertise connects to what the manuscript actually argues or does. Seniority is not irrelevant, but on its own it tells an editor nothing that a quick search of the reviewer’s publication record wouldn’t already show, and it reads as an attempt to get a friendly or lenient review from someone recognizable rather than a considered match.
A strong justification instead names something specific and checkable:
- A subfield or methodological overlap — the reviewer has published using the same technique, model system, dataset, or analytical approach the manuscript relies on.
- Prior published work directly relevant to the manuscript’s claims — not just the same broad discipline, but work an editor could plausibly imagine the reviewer being asked to weigh in on.
- A specific competency the manuscript needs assessed — statistical method, clinical population, instrumentation, a particular theoretical framework — that not every reviewer in the field would have.
The goal is to let an editor unfamiliar with the sub-specialty understand, in one or two sentences, exactly why this person and not simply “someone senior in the field.”
The conflict-of-interest norm: avoid recent co-authors and same-institution suggestions
Suggesting a reviewer you have a close, undisclosed relationship with undermines the independence peer review is supposed to provide, even if you believe the review itself would be fair. Journals and editorial offices generally expect authors not to suggest, as reviewers:
- Recent co-authors or collaborators — commonly bounded at the last 3 to 5 years, though the exact window is set by the individual journal, not a single universal rule.
- Anyone at the same institution or department as an author.
- A current or recent mentor, mentee, PhD/postdoc supervisor, or supervisee.
- Anyone with a financial relationship to an author or the funded work (co-investigator on a grant, business partner, etc.).
- Personal relationships — close friends or family — that a reasonable reader would see as compromising objectivity.
This is the same underlying logic that governs reviewer conduct generally: COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers direct reviewers to decline when a genuine competing interest exists, and authors suggesting reviewers are held to a parallel standard from the other direction — don’t put an editor in the position of having to catch a conflict you already knew about. See CASRAI’s Types of Conflict of Interest guide and Conflict of Interest (COI) in Research entry for the fuller taxonomy (financial, personal, institutional) that applies here. Most submission systems separately allow authors to name reviewers to exclude, with a reason — a legitimate way to flag a genuine, disclosed conflict without naming a preferred alternative.
Worked example justification sentences
These are illustrative examples of the register and specificity a strong justification uses — adapt the actual content to your manuscript, don’t copy the wording verbatim.
- “Dr. [Name]’s 2023 and 2024 publications applying [specific statistical method] to [specific population/dataset type] make them well positioned to assess the analytical approach used in Section 3 of this manuscript.”
- “Dr. [Name] has published extensively on [specific mechanism/pathway] using the same [model organism/assay] employed here, and is one of a small number of researchers with direct experience troubleshooting this technique.”
- “Dr. [Name]’s recent work on [specific theoretical framework] is directly relevant to the interpretive claims in the Discussion section, and they are not a co-author or collaborator of any author on this manuscript.”
- “Dr. [Name] led the development of the [named instrument/protocol] this study uses for data collection and can assess whether it was applied and reported correctly.”
Notice what each example does: it names a specific, checkable basis for expertise tied to a specific part of the manuscript, and — where relevant — proactively states there is no conflict, rather than leaving the editor to wonder.
Frequently asked questions
Do I have to suggest reviewers when I submit a manuscript?
It depends on the journal. Many journals make suggested reviewers optional; some request a minimum number (commonly 2 to 4) as part of the submission form. Check the specific journal’s author instructions — this is not a universal requirement across all publishers.
How many reviewers should I suggest?
Follow the journal’s stated requirement if it has one. Where a journal doesn’t specify a number, providing a small handful (roughly 3 to 5) each with a distinct, specific justification is more useful to an editor than a long undifferentiated list.
Will the editor definitely use my suggested reviewers?
No. Editors are responsible for reviewer selection and are not obligated to invite any author-suggested reviewer, or to follow a reviewer’s recommendation once invited — this is explicit in the ICMJE recommendations on the responsibilities of authors, editors, and reviewers. A suggestion with a strong, specific justification simply makes it easier for an editor to say yes.
Can I suggest a reviewer who isn’t a well-known name in the field?
Yes, and often you should. A less senior researcher with directly relevant, specific expertise — a postdoc who developed the exact technique your manuscript uses, for example — is frequently a better-justified suggestion than a prominent name whose connection to your specific claims is only general.
What if I don’t know anyone with directly relevant expertise to suggest?
Leaving the suggested-reviewer field blank, where it’s optional, is a reasonable choice — a weak, generic suggestion doesn’t help your submission and can read as padding. Editors routinely identify qualified reviewers independently of author suggestions.
For the reviewer’s side of this process — including how to handle an invitation you should turn down — see CASRAI’s How to Decline a Peer Review Invitation guide. For how the overall submission moves from file upload through editorial decision, see the Manuscript Submission Process guide.
