Often, journals ask to suggest preferred and non-preferred reviewers and the Author is obliged to write names and affiliations of potential reviwers in order to be able to proceed with the submission. Usually, I have the habit to suggest researchers who are experienced in the field and know my scientific production. However, suggested referees are contacted rarely, almost never. In the long term my idea is that this step of the submission could easily be avoided, as it is of little use.

A few months ago, I was asked to suggest three reviewers for a paper that I submitted to a local journal; and I did that.  That paper was on Facilitating Cooperative Learning that I have already uploaded on RG.

Today again, I suggested one reviewer for my paper that I sent to another journal.  Do you normally do the same?

Article Facilitating Cooperative Learning Among Matriculation Biology Students

To this I did not react. If you ask - represent the names of reviewers. In principle, this is normal. When is a lot of different studies only you

can clearly know the specifics of the study. So log forms its base the reviewers. And not necessarily your reviewer will look your work.

Dear Miranda,

I have not experienced such situation, when journal was asking me for recommendations  the names of the reviewers. Once, while my book was before publishing in 2012, the Faculty Board asked me for such name, but I politely refused to gave it.

Often, journals ask to suggest preferred and non-preferred reviewers and the Author is obliged to write names and affiliations of potential reviwers in order to be able to proceed with the submission. Usually, I have the habit to suggest researchers who are experienced in the field and know my scientific production. However, suggested referees are contacted rarely, almost never. In the long term my idea is that this step of the submission could easily be avoided, as it is of little use.

Dear All,

In such a case I would suggest a distinguished specialist of the field of whom I know, (s)he is an honest and correct person. Personnel experiences may be important.

I note the decision is made by the editor.

Usually, journals ask the author to submit a list of reviewers and the journal will select one or two from the list without letting the author know the names of the two reviewers.

So far I have not experienced such a suggestion. In my view that is not an ethical proposition. It depends upon the person suggested. If he/she is honest and ethical there is no problem. If ever I am in such a situation, I would prefer suggest an eminent personality in the area who is very knowledgeable and published a number of papers in the area.

Not very happy! however, I tried to send the editor some good names in the field!

Normally every publishing house,  will have a panel of experts to review; In case the panel members suggest to publisher to identify some others in the niche area, then the publisher may ask the researcher to suggest...  there again the cycle what @ Nageswara had suggested would apply 9ethical, clash of interest etc., ).

As I remember I could choose the Editor, now if they ask about the reviewer too, then it is not an anonymous peer-review process any more.

I was never asked to indicate the name of reviewer. I do not remember if, on rare occasions, the comments of the reviewers were sent to me, including the name; I believe that always, or almost always, there were only n 1; n 2 and so on.

I´ve never experienced this method or heard about it before. What shall be the sense of such a procedure?

Thanks for your views, dear friends.  Even when I was a student and published with my supervisor, we were asked to give some names.  That journal asked for 3 names.  Sure, we selected the ones who were in the same field.  

In today's situation the journal is not a local one.  When I typed in the name, email address of the Prof, the next blank was immediately inserted for me 'Non preferred reviewer'.  There was no place for a 'Preferred reviewer' at all.  So I sent an email instead to the journal, to suggest the name of that Prof.

@Enzo, Vyacheslav, Andras, Prof Nages, Beata; I selected the Prof whose papers I had cited to be my reviewer.  That Prof actually provided the research questionnaire; and he had published in the same journal to which I submitted my paper.

@Mohammed and friends, at first I wasn't sure if I should be happy or not.  Then I decided to be happy; because I had contacted the Prof for permission to use his questionnaire, and he had sent me more papers.  I told him that I had honestly cited his papers and had re-framed my sentences.  

@Miranda, the problem is not the choice of an experienced referee in your topic, the problem is the usefulness of this procedure. As i reported, it could be avoided because almost never applied in the manuscript revision. It all seems a desire to give a false appearance of democracy in the process of revision of the manuscript.

I have confronted this situation o various occassions. Often it is a mandatory requirement.  I am happy to provide the names of the experts on the field I consider most knowledgeable to judge my work. Frequently are those who quot most in the paper.

Dear @Miranda, I have never experienced such situation to recommend the reviewers. I think that such journal's policy appeared in last years, or I have not submitted a paper to such kind of journals. If I were asked, as many of You have mentioned, I would be glad to recommend the experts in the field!

Thanks @Enzo, Carlos, Prof Ljubomir.  I can see now that this has happened to some of us, but not all.  And if it did, we seem to agree as to who we should suggest to review our papers.

I got a message from Prof Zaal just now.  He said: 'For many journals now it is a usual practice... You can indicate promnnent names from your field of expertise. For example, the most cited authors in our list of references. This does not necessarily mean the journal will invite exactly these persons as reviewers.'

Reviewer selection: author or editor knows best?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1747195/pdf/v060p00799.pdf

In today's specialised research world, it is not always easy for the editor to choose a suitable and willing referee. So, asking for suggestions is ethical as long as the editor has the final say in choosing from his/her own contacts or the suggested contact. I suspect that it is also a good (snowball) way for the editor to get the names of referees for the next paper to come his/her way! I would not simply suggest your citations as referees, but rather use your knowledge as to who is a good thinker interested in your field.

Listing who not to contact is a useful courtesy to the author, as there might be an unfortunate feud between the author and a certain possible referees.

In my fields, the practice of asking for possible and / or unwanted referees by the editor is very rare.

Dear Ierardi,

I do not know how is it it in your special field but in entomology and ecology – as far as I can remember - authors are not obliged to name reviewers. Proposing reviewers is generally an option but it is not obligatory. By the way, authors cannot identify anonymous reviewers. However, regarding their style and grammatical structure reviewers’ nationality can be guessed.

If that happened and it is a tradition of article publication, then that is very good. It is an effort to show that the author is in the reviewing team. But as far as I am concerned, it never happened. Probably this culture of making authors participate in such process exists in some fields and absent in another. The process however may have pron and cons.     

Dear friends, thanks for your views.  @Ian, thanks for 'asking for suggestions is ethical as long as the editor has the final say in choosing from his/her own contacts or the suggested contact. I suspect that it is also a good (snowball) way for the editor to get the names of referees for the next paper to come his/her way!'

It agree's with Prof Kamal: 'the idea for these journals is to build a bank of reviewers names in certain specialized fields'.

I was recommended for the reviewer in my area by people from RG. I was not notified before I get the message from the journal, but in general - I have never refused to peer-review the papers in my area. I suppose that such journals are always available their own reviewers. Thus increasing the number of people who had previously given their opinion on scientific excellence of the paper.

Dear Prithvi et al., yes it has been my experience too: 'whenever you wish to submit an article, one is required to enter personal details, personal classifications, areas of expertise, etc etc, in order to create a unique profile that the author will continue to use throughout the time he/she keeps on submitting articles to that journal.'

When I submitted 1 paper to JSSH, (a local international journal, Scopus, no IF), I was asked to name 3 reviewers.  I had to state their specialized fields; I had to phone them and get the info (and their approval).  But yesterday, I just emailed the Prof, because he is in USA, not in my own country.

Keep it up, dear Valentina.  And thanks also for reviewing my papers on RG!  Wonderful!

I have noticed that journals used at least two their own reviewers  in addition to those recommended by the author. In this connection, I received (without knowing who are reviewers) дзсхсдхя from 5  reviewers, numbered 1, 2 and so on until the 5, in sending a publication in a journal that does not even impact factor. I think there is nothing wrong in this endeavor, because of  this journals supplement its own database and reinsured with a wider peer review.

Yes dear Valentina.  I also think that from the comments of the 3 reviewers, that the journal used at least two their own reviewers.  Thanks for your views.  Since this practice is fast becoming the norm (at least from comments of RG members on this thread) we just have to get used to it.  When asked to suggest, we do that and leave the final decision to the editors.  

That's right @Roland.  Thanks, we are all learning from one another all the time on RG.  Even simple things like how to ask questions in science and humanities :)

For me as author, this always irritates me. I do not want to answer who should review my paper. It is a different matter that the Editors only preserve the data to use it in extreme urgency when they fail to find a suitable referee. I think a set of good editors as on an editorial board should do this job and not ask the authors. It is perhaps wrong that this without filling up this data the paper is denied upload. At the most this answer be optional.

@Vijay, good answer. I fully agree also because often the request of the favorite and not referees  is just a formal fact that does not have a real following. At the end the Editor decides by  himself and if he does not have time, the decision may be in haste and wrong due to the reading the author's name rather than the article. As I said in my previous answer, this step should be eliminated from the process of submission or at least be an optional field.

What I feel is that nowadays due to many advances, easy online submissions, more Institutes/Univ....submissions are ever increasing day by day ..also all journals have increased their no. of issues / year...which altogether have increased paper lod --- and regular reviewers may be overloaded.....that is why reviewer list is being asked which helps in rapid processing of the paper --- whatever list we give ultimately from it reviewers are selected by Editor's preference for the best and seeing the area/expertise as well as profiles available of these reviewers ..... if we give 3....then 1 is of ours list and 2 may be Editor's one out of the reviewers pool just generated with a journal from names given by authors

I prefer to give names of reviewers working in that area of my paper and 1 atlaest preferentially from developed / western countries

Thanks Vijay and Enzo.  @Vijay, even you get irritated at this, but how do you think younger researchers feel?  Are they expected to know and be in touch with the experienced people whose work they cite?  Sometimes I write to them, but if they don't reply, I feel very sad.  @Enzo, thanks; this step is optional for some journals, but not all.  It just gives an 'impression of available choice'.

May be the Editor should ask the suggested names of the reviewers only after he has failed to get a review based on the set procedure and policy of the journal. If they are able to pick a set of reviewers on the basis of existing data base as well references provided by the author as part of their manuscript, fine. If eventually they do not succeed, either they return the manuscript or ask the authors a set of suggested referees. But it should be avoided in first submission. It may be done after initial upload. Just like after submission they ask for signed copyright form, they may upload suggested referees.  

Dear All, just sharing My experience with 2 journals regarding Reviewer's name in 2014 since Jan .

Surprising one good journal with IF 0.65 returned my paper after 4 months on the simple reason that Editor could not find any reviewer and as per their journal policy they could not process / publish..........Editor also did not ask me any reviewer...... Finally I submitted last week in 1.8 IF journal (when I read paper after 4 months -- I could again improve and so submitted in a higher journal

In another case, one journal with 0.8 IF when I inquired / reminded about my one paper (showing status as "With Editor" for past 3 months) --- asked me 2 names of reviewers......I sent accordingly 3 names of reviewers....  again after 2 months when I inquired - i was again asked 2 names.......(Editor forgot that mail in which I send 2 reviewers names).......finally it is under review.........Now its IF has dropped down to 0.45 only.....

In 3rd case I submitted a paper in last year March in a J with 0.9 IF..........showing Under review for 4-5 months.....finally I sent many mails to Editors but even a single was not replied......In Jan. 2014 my PhD student was in urgent so I sent a very strong mail to Editor in Chief and narrating that even a paper with very novel finding and first time report is not being entertained and so I withdrawn paper .....to my surprise the next morning in my mail Acceptance letter was lying of EIC with apology and it got published within a week then..... 

What need to be done in such cases -- and why can't editor be responsible for making reviewing and following some responsible attitude

I think this is one of the reason people opt for Open access journals - becoz these follow rapid reviewing and fast processing / publication.... and entertain all inquiries very promptly --- only thing the journal need to be a peer-reviewed Journal in real senses

A journal must give decision max. in 2-4 months.......

Thanks very much Kuldeep.  I appreciate your stance: 'What need to be done in such cases -- and why can't editor be responsible for making reviewing and following some responsible attitude?' (I have a similar problem now.  A local journal has no IF didn't acknowledge receiving my paper after 2 months, but the journal in US that has IF about 2.6, acknowledged getting my paper in a few days).

I have just been typing email to my friend Dr Corrienna on this matter: 'The last time, I got some info from you, and I sent 1 other paper to Sainsab, cc to Dr Fong. But it wasn't acknowledged that they received it, the way you acknowledge for Learning Sc and Maths Online. Is this their usual manner?

Does Sainsab/ ASMEP have a phone number, so that I can get in touch other than by email? I will cc this to Prof Fong and Sainsab.  Last week I sent a paper to an article in US, and it was already acknowledged. I realize that different journals will function slightly differently.'

After that I wrote to the journal to ask if they received my paper. (Dear friends and profs, please take some time to appreciate and upvote the posts of your friends who have done the same for you.  Let's be good colleagues, besides being good ethical scientists.  Thanks.)

I do really share opinion of dear @Vijay! "...But it should be avoided in first submission. It may be done after initial upload. Just like after submission they ask for signed copyright form, they may upload suggested referees. " Absolutely agree!

Dear @Miranda, I do very much like your last bolded text: "Dear friends..."! :)

Dear Prof Ljubomir, it's very unusual.  The local journal that has IF = 0, asked for 3 suggested reviewers, to be filled up in a softcopy that they 'Submission kit'.  It was fine because I met many researchers at conferences in 2012 and 2013, so I phoned them up.  But the Journal in US that you searched out for me only asked for 1, it's IF >2.5; and it was optional to provide a reviewer.

(About the bolded text, it's probably because I'm the first child in the family and has to take many responsibilities for others.  Maybe, most first born children behave like this.)

Dear @Miranda, You should check for how long this local  journal exists? It is important to do! Maybe they did not have papers of such matter until now!?

Prof Ljubomir, even though I wrote that day, they didn't reply.  When I went to the conference in Dec 2013, Dr C told me about that journal, Sainsab, ASMEP.  The editor of Sainsab is Dr F, still no word at all from Dr F. Dr C is the editor of Learning Sc and Math Online Journal, that published my paper on Collaborative learning.  

Dr C said send again because the mail could have gone to Spam folder etc, but I asked for a phone number.  I have 2 email addresses of Dr F, but he did not respond.

DEAR MIRANDA, YOU ARE RIGHT IN YOUR ACTIONS, BUT I'M SURE WE MUST CHOOSE A SOLID CONFERENCE FOR A REPORT AND PUBLISHING OF OUR WORKS.IT'S NO EASY MATTER TO WRITE A WORK, BUT TO PUBLISH A WORK AFTER THE CONFERENCE IS MORE COMPLICATED.STRANGE!

Thanks dear friends, I will wait and do all I can.  If I continue to meet with 'no response and silence', the only thing is to withdraw my paper, and submit to one of the Sc Edu Journals on the list that Prof Ljubomir has provided.  Thanks for all your counsel and concern; can't do without you all.

Dear Dr Palani, I also did the same.  I phoned up friends who were able to function as reviewers to get info from them about their training as well, their degree etc.  But there are some things that we cannot ever know or find out.  So we should not be too worried about trying to finding out at all.

Simply the reviewer maybe chosen from the recent references, avoid those having direct relation, like co-authors, same country, ....

They ask you so that they could add up a new member in their data-base. But they do not send articles to those whom you have chosen.

Choosing and suggesting a reviewer of your paper among your peers may be considered unethical.

Simply send some expert reviewers with their contact details (you may choose from your recent references), avoid those having direct relation with you, like co-authors, same country, ....