Finding reviewers quickly has become one of the most common bottlenecks in the editorial process. An editor-in-chief may sometimes contact ten researchers before receiving two positive responses. As a result, the entire publication workflow can slow down.
To speed up this stage, editorial teams can combine several methods. For example, they can use bibliographic searches, manuscript reference analysis, researcher profiles, and an internal reviewer pool.
Why is it becoming more difficult to find reviewers?
The number of submitted manuscripts increases every year. However, the number of researchers available to review them remains relatively stable. As a result, each expert receives more and more review requests, often without compensation.
Consequently, the acceptance rate for peer review invitations continues to decline. Editors therefore need to broaden their pool of reviewers to compensate for this trend.
Find reviewers using Scientific Databases
Bibliographic databases such as PubMed or Scopus can help identify authors who have published on closely related topics. This approach is widely used, but it can take time.
For example, editors can search using the manuscript title, its main keywords, or recent publications in the same field. This makes it easier to build an initial list of potential reviewers.
• Target authors cited in the manuscript
Authors cited in the manuscript’s bibliography are already highly familiar with the subject. They therefore represent a natural pool of potential reviewers, provided that any conflicts of interest are carefully checked.
However, it is generally preferable to prioritize researchers whose work is closely related to the topic without being directly connected to the authors’ collaboration network.
• Use dedicated researcher platforms
ORCID profiles can help verify a researcher’s identity and review the scientific information associated with their profile. In particular, they provide a quick way to check affiliations and key research contributions. Web of Science Researcher Profiles can also provide information on publications, citations, and certain peer review or editorial activities. Together, these sources can help editorial teams check a potential reviewer’s expertise before sending an invitation.
Ask your Extended Editorial Board
Members of the editorial board or advisory board often know experts who may be available to review a manuscript. Therefore, a simple internal request can sometimes solve the problem within a few hours rather than several days.
This approach is especially useful in highly specialized fields. In these cases, a standard keyword search may return only a small number of relevant profiles.
Automate Reviewer Searches Without Removing Human Oversight
Some journal management systems now include automated reviewer recommendation features based on manuscript content. These tools analyze keywords and suggest a list of potentially relevant profiles.
However, automated recommendations do not eliminate the need for human verification. Editorial teams still need to identify potential conflicts of interest and ensure that each suggested expert is genuinely suitable and available.
Before sending an invitation, the editorial team should in particular check the researcher’s affiliation, recent publications, possible collaborations with the authors, and whether their expertise is genuinely aligned with the manuscript’s subject.
Faster Build a Reviewer Pool to Find Reviewers Faster
Every reviewer search should contribute to a reusable internal database. As a result, editors can save valuable time the next time a manuscript on a similar topic is submitted.
The database can include areas of expertise, dates of previous invitations, responses to review requests and, where relevant, turnaround times for completed reports.
Keeping this information over time is still often overlooked, even though it is one of the simplest ways to make your journal’s peer review process more efficient over the long term.
Finally, by combining bibliographic databases, researcher profiles, editorial networks and internal historical data, it becomes easier to find relevant reviewers without compromising the quality or independence of the evaluation process.
LibScience develops an automated bibliographic reference verification solution for scientific journals and publishers, including the detection of retracted articles, automatic DOI enrichment and contextual citation relevance checking. Discover LibScience