I have seen many guys those do not have any experience to write a paper .or just publish one or two conference papers but they are in the reviewers in the well reputed journals of good societies. 

this processes decreasing the quality of the journal. if the paper is reviewed by less experience then definitely the comment will be not reasonable.   

I have seen many guys those do not have any experience to write a paper .or just publish one or two conference papers but they are in the reviewers in the well reputed journals of good societies. 

Reviewer Selection Guideline for Journal Reviewing Process

From the journal bylaws, reviewers for submitted manuscript of Journal of Applied Non-linear Dynamics are selected by the journal Editors and Publications. General guidelines for selection are:

Potential reviewer must be nominated by the established scientists (or advisory board members) in the corresponding fields. Nominated reviewers must be approved by the editor of the Journal.

Potential reviewers should be very good at the corresponding areas or fields. S/he should have a profound understanding of materials for reviewing, and s/he must be actively involved in research/teaching within the past two (2) years when nominated.

Nominated Reviewer must demonstrate individual expertise in the field related to that Journal and Publication, with minimum requirement ofA related Doctoral Level Degree with at least two years of research experience in the related field.

S/he must be familiar with current development of respective scientific fields.

Nominated Reviewer must present evidence to show his/her outstanding status in re-spective research field. Acceptable evidence includes:At least two recent publications in internationally circulated Journals or Periodi-cals that are leading publications in the related scientific field;

A reference letter from independent personnel with plausible credentials, includ-ing but not limited to: tenured professors of university in United States; scientists from Research and Development departments of industry research; research per-sonnel from government agencies and laboratories; and other accredited institu-tions of such nature.

Prior review experiences for other journals, periodicals and conferences held by accredited professional associations or societies.

Final decision of selection is the responsibility of Chief-in-Editor for the journal. Criteria provided in this guideline only serves as minimal requirement for the selection of a re-viewer. Chief-in-Editor for the Journal of Applied Nonlinear Dynamics should consider other facts regarding its particular field and nominated reviewer in deciding whether to accept the nomination or not.

In Medical Journal the review processes is voluntarily  but the selection of the reviewer based on the experience publications area of expertise  and reputation in the field and not haphazard selection

Selection of reviewers should be very serious job. Since the question of non paid reviewers is still actual, we do have different practice in selection process. Reviewer Hub at Elsevier is very functional help for reviewers. I have attached a link to "how to become a reviewer".

Let me bring some good questions that are related to your question. There are fine different opinions about the issue that you have raised dear @Rajeev.

https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/becoming-a-reviewer-how-and-why

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_select_referees

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_the_reviewer_referee_is_chosen_to_review_a_manuscript_in_the_journal_on_which_basis

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_a_good_thing_that_journals_ask_you_to_recommend_a_reviewer_for_you_article

The review process is a scientific work so it should be of a great integrity, and in that issue the money must not to be valuable … for example, I received a paper  from a foreign magazine to review it , but I apologized because it was out of my exact specialist..

Dear Dr. Rajeev

Good night

I agree with Dr. Faizul Nisha in what she wrote

Final decision of the selection is the responsibility of Chief-in-Editor of the journal. Chief-in-Editor may select the peer reviewer from the sent list of the potential reviewer which was sent with the manuscript or may select from the reviewer list that has been collected from the previous authors according to the criteria provided in this guideline. Chief Editor of journals should consider other sides regarding the scientific field of the manuscript and its interest

Good luck

good journals have there own reviewers , who are good enough to do there work in concerned area

True, but on the other hand, reputable journals do not select reviewers anyhow.

I agree with Muneeb. Many well known good journals especially in Mathematics have their own reliable reviewers and to become one you have to go through rigorous evaluation and will only be invited when they have manuscript related closely to your areas.

Moreover, many journals now have long list of Editors who are experts in the journal areas of concentration. So, this makes it easier for the journal to select from the list of Editors to be among the reviewers and also to properly judge the reviewers' comments.

Furthermore, the idea of using 3 reviewers is a good way to check balance the reports from them.

These are my candid opinions. 

It is a good idea to be in web of Research Gate.

Pureda Yazici

So long as the invited has indepth know how on the article subject.. It's a fine idea

Dear @Rajeev, here is the experience of one Elsevier's editor.

"In many areas of research, the growth of paper submissions is outpacing the growth of qualified reviewers and resulting in pressure on the peer-review system. What do you think the solution to this problem is and how do you see the peer-review process changing in the future?

Finding reviewers who are knowledgeable about the topic, and are willing and able to review within a short time frame is difficult, especially for a new journal. Improvements to EES have made it easier to search Elsevier’s wider databases for potential reviewers but the biggest increase in reviewers suggested for a given manuscript has been from going through all the reviewers’ records and ascribing ‘personal classifications’ to them – either by emailing them and asking them to do so, or from internet searches. It would be great if Elsevier could do that routinely when someone registers, or is registered as a reviewer, rather than relying on me paying someone to do that for us.

As a cross-disciplinary journal, we would like to have at least one reviewer from a transport background and one from a health background for each article but unless we do not use the ‘alternate reviewer’ promotion facility, this is not possible. It would be possible if Elsevier’s system allowed us to classify people by discipline as well as by topic interest, and only proposed reviewers from the same discipline could be promoted if an invited reviewer declines or is uninvited because of not responding..."

https://www.elsevier.com/editors-update/story/editor-profiles/editor-in-the-spotlight-jennifer-mindell

They must be experts in the area of review.

Generally editors asks for the CV, to know about the reviewer experience in the area of the journal 

Dear Imene,

                    Only few Journals editors ask for the CV.

The DOs and DON’Ts of Selecting Preferred Reviewers!

There are a number of reasons that we ask authors to provide preferred reviewers. These suggestions can be extremely useful in a number of situations. For example, if the Associate Editor is struggling to find referees for a paper, the preferred reviewers become a very valuable resource. Not only are they potential reviewers, but if they are unable to review the paper they can suggest other people who might be able to...

https://methodsblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/preferred-reviewers/

I think that, there many factor used to evaluate reviewing nominee, I mean, international well known method, for example Open Researcher & Contributor ID (ORCID), or Google Scholar. Many journals depend on such sites to get scientific reputation for any reviewer, and all of us are respect these sites very well, and it is enough for nomination process.

Regards

Emad

Honestly added- as I've done most recently in other threads too (just to point to the reliablity the ResearchGate-stats are telling us and anybody:

It is not the only post / thread where RG-Stats are displayed with errors: the following counts/numbers not only logically appear "erratic" but definitely are wrong!

Reads 26 (sic!)

Followers: 33

Answers: 21

Recommendations: 10

Apologies: just to add former counts Ifound in my file:

as of 2016-04-03, 11:56 a.m.:

8/ 0 (upvotes/downvotes) · 15 Answers · 98 Views 24 Followers

Actual numbers in ResGate Stats

as of 2018-08-16, 10.52 p.m.:

Reads: 31

Followers: 33

Answers: 22

Recommendations: 10 (= former 'upvotes')