Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 30, 2026

Author Spotlight: Biological Standardization to Ensure Reproducibility and Harmonization in Research
Published on: August 4, 2023
Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by
Sara Schroter1, Leanne Tite, Andrew Hutchings
1BMJ Editorial Office, BMA House, London, England. sschroter@bmj.com
Context:
Many journals give authors who submit papers the opportunity to suggest reviewers. Use of these reviewers varies by journal and little is known about the quality of the reviews they produce.
Objective:
To compare author- and editor-suggested reviewers to investigate differences in review quality and recommendations for publication.
Design, Setting, And Participants:
Observational study of original research papers sent for external review at 10 biomedical journals. Editors were instructed to make decisions about their choice of reviewers in their usual manner. Journal administrators then requested additional reviews from the author's list of suggestions according to a strict protocol.
Main Outcome Measure:
Review quality using the Review Quality Instrument and the proportion of reviewers recommending acceptance (including minor revision), revision, or rejection.
Results:
There were 788 reviews for 329 manuscripts. Review quality (mean difference in Review Quality Instrument score, -0.05; P = .27) did not differ significantly between author- and editor-suggested reviewers. The author-suggested reviewers were more likely to recommend acceptance (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.66) or revise (odds ratio, 2.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-4.97). This difference was larger in the open reviews of BMJ than among the blinded reviews of other journals for acceptance (P = .02). Where author- and editor-suggested reviewers differed in their recommendations, the final editorial decision to accept or reject a study was evenly balanced (50.9% of decisions consistent with the preferences of the author-suggested reviewers).
Conclusions:
Author- and editor-suggested reviewers did not differ in the quality of their reviews, but author-suggested reviewers tended to make more favorable recommendations for publication. Editors can be confident that reviewers suggested by authors will complete adequate reviews of manuscripts, but should be cautious about relying on their recommendations for publication.
More Related Videos
10:39Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning
Published on: August 29, 2025
05:07Rup (RNA-seq Usability Assessment Pipeline) - Quality Control for Bulk RNA-seq Experiments in Eukaryotes
Published on: November 7, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Self-Evaluation: Self-Enhancement and Self-Verification
Protein Folding Quality Check in the RER
Review and Preview
Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care...
Review and Preview
Percentiles are a type of fractile that partition data into...
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test