Many times when an author start the process of submitting a manuscript to a journal, he or she is asked to select an editor from a list, and to suggest 4 to 8 reviewers, is there right and wrong choice in this process? What are the conditions to be followed to achieve the optimum choice?
Best regards
Sarmad.
@Hulya Avci. Some journals asks you to select editor, and suggest a possible reviewers. They do not necessarily assign your manuscript to your choice.
Best regards
Sarmad.
I have been astonished to learn such details. Is there an opportunity to select your reviewers as well as editor? This is too weird. Need explanation from others...
@Hulya Avci. Some journals asks you to select editor, and suggest a possible reviewers. They do not necessarily assign your manuscript to your choice.
Best regards
Sarmad.
The pertinence of the editor and reviewers with the subject matter of the submitted manuscript may play a role, concerning the main question of the thread.
Regards
... is there right and wrong choice in this process? Yes. From one point of view, the right choice is the selection of non-hostile people as already pointed out by dear @Farid.
Select a journal in which there are editors who are interested in the same area that your manuscript is about.
The rule of thumb in journal publishing is blind review. I have not come across such request of one selecting an editor or reviewer during submission.
When making a submission, I believe that the journal hosts competent editors and reviewers to undertake the work.
For what concerns editor(s), there is no choice. The journal will select an editor (if they have more than one) based either on logistics (i.e. spreading the workload) or competence of the editor in the research field of the MS. This editor will make a first selection of submitted MSs, eliminating those that obviously do not meet the quality required for publication. This is done to avoid bothering the reviewers with an MS that cannot be "redeemed" without a complete rewrite.
You can usually propose up to three reviewers. As already mentioned, they should not be hostile to your work, but this is not the main point. The editor(s) expect you to propose reviewers who are specifically competent on the subject of your MS. The required competence is not always self-evident for the editors, and that is why they need your help.
Then there are general considerations that may lead the editors to exclude one or more of the reviewers you propose, for example:
- A proposed reviewer is a close associate of the MS author (excluded because of obvious conflict of interest).
- A proposed reviewer excuses him/herself from the review, for personal or professional reasons.
- A proposed reviewer is very inexperienced, or obviously not competent in the specific field.
- A proposed reviewer is already known to the editors not to provide reviews timely, or with sufficient quality (editors do keep a "blacklist" of reviewers, either written or in their minds).
- A proposed reviewer is a famous and very busy scientist, unlikely to have any previous connection with the MS author and unlikely to have time to provide an in-depth review (the MS author proposed this reviewer only in the hope of basking in the glory of having such an illustrious reviewer).
How a reviewer is selected by an Editor? The Editor first looks at the references cited by the author. If it includes name or names of one or two persons who have recently published a paper in an peer reviewed Journal, the job of the Editor becomes simple. He normally selects these persons as reviewers. Otherwise, because of a good network between the Editor and other well known academicians, the Editor may select one of academicians from his network. Sometimes, the Editor may reject the paper by himself if the contents of the paper are of poor quality or the paper does not fall under the scope of the Journal. Alternatively, in rare cases, if the author is a well known person and an authority on the subject, the Editor may accept the paper without referring to any reviewer. Even if one of the reviewer's reject the paper, the Editor decision to accept or reject the paper is final. The Editor may give the reviewer who rejected the paper an option to publish his comments as a Note or Letter.
Indeed, this is a controversial topic!
There was an interesting paper published a few years ago in PloS One titled "Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers?
Link: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013345
The researchers analyzed 500+ submissions to a specific journal and found that editor-suggested reviewers rated manuscripts between 30% and 42% less favorably than author-suggested reviewers. Needless to say, there are different interpretations of this result.
Generally, I advise clients to submit a diverse and well-respected list of potential candidates for your review panel. The editor may/may-not choose to select from your list - but, if you select academics who are clearly favorable to your research (e.g., former co-authors, unqualified experts in another field, peers at your institution, etc.), it's possible this may affect the outcome of your editor's final decision. Editors of reputable journals review hundreds of applications and manuscripts on a quarterly basis and will be quick to spot a biased list of suggested reviewers.
Best regards,
Hamed Bazaz,
Founder, Managing Director - JournalEdit (journaledit.com)
There is a reason they ask you about the editor and reviewers. The reason is they want to know about the experts in the relevant field who are not in their reviewers list. They dont exactly send it to the mentioned reviewers.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals