Finding Reviewers Through Networks and Expanding Beyond Existing Contacts

Finding Reviewers Through Networks and Expanding Beyond Existing Contacts

As part of the Peer Review Week 2026 Theme, “Peer Review Capacity: Volume, Speed, and Quality,” this Q&A provides strategies for matching qualified reviewers with manuscripts.

In this Q&A, guest editor for the SLAS Technology Special Issue, “NexusXp: The Connected Lab” (Submit a Manuscript), Kalpesh Gupta, shares practical strategies for selecting reviewers with hands-on experience and peer-review expertise. Gupta also describes how to keep the process moving after an invitation is declined, balance speed with scientific rigor and analyze citations for new reviewers.

When selecting reviewers for a special issue, what qualities or expertise do you look for? 

Gupta: When selecting reviewers, I place a strong emphasis on hands-on experience and previous reviewing experience rather than relying only on broad subject-matter expertise. This is particularly important in laboratory automation, where a manuscript may combine automation technology with assay development, biology, data analysis, or other scientific disciplines. 

I think about the reviewer team collectively rather than finding one person who can evaluate every aspect of the manuscript. I often look for reviewers with complementary expertise—for example, someone who understands the automation platform and another reviewer who can critically evaluate the underlying assay or scientific results. The goal is to ensure both the technology and the supporting science receive rigorous evaluation. 

How do you identify strong reviewers beyond the people you already know or have worked with? 

Gupta: One of my first approaches is to look at the papers cited in the manuscript. Those references often lead directly to researchers who have relevant expertise in the technology or scientific area being discussed. 

From there, I may ask another expert for recommendations, look at researchers who are actively publishing in the field, or identify authors of recent papers using the same or similar technology. I find this approach particularly helpful for specialized or emerging areas where the right reviewer may not already be in my professional network. 

It also helps broaden the reviewer pool rather than repeatedly going back to the same group of established experts. 

When reviewers decline or are unavailable, what strategies have you found helpful for identifying additional qualified reviewers and keeping the review process moving? 

Gupta: Reviewer availability can be one of the most challenging parts of managing peer review. It is helpful to invite several qualified reviewers in parallel rather than approaching them one at a time. 

If invitations are declined, I broaden the expertise slightly instead of waiting indefinitely for the theoretical “perfect” reviewer, while still ensuring the person has the background needed to evaluate the manuscript appropriately. I also work closely with the editorial team and ask for their suggestions when necessary.  

I experienced this with a manuscript that combined both bioinformatics and automation. Finding reviewers who could appropriately cover those areas was difficult. I reached out to the editorial team, and they helped identify four potential reviewers within two days. That experience reinforced for me how valuable strong editorial support can be when handling highly interdisciplinary manuscripts. 

How do you balance the need to secure reviews quickly with making sure the right experts evaluate the manuscript? 

Gupta: For me, quality has to remain the priority. A fast review is not particularly valuable if the reviewer lacks the expertise to properly evaluate the work. 

At the same time, the reviewer does not need to be the most prominent or well-known researcher in the field. I would rather select a highly relevant expert who understands the work, will engage thoughtfully with the manuscript, and can provide a strong review. 

If choosing the right reviewer means the process takes somewhat longer, I am comfortable with that. The editor's responsibility is ultimately to ensure the manuscript receives a fair, rigorous and scientifically meaningful evaluation—not simply the fastest possible evaluation. 

Based on your experience as a Guest Editor, what does SLAS do particularly well to support the peer review process, and where do you see opportunities for us to improve? 

Gupta: One of the things I have appreciated most about working with SLAS is the communication and editorial support. The process is clear, and when I have needed help—particularly with identifying reviewers for difficult interdisciplinary manuscripts—the editorial team has been very responsive. The strength and scientific quality of the broader SLAS community are also major advantages. 

Looking forward, I think there is an opportunity to explore AI-assisted reviewer identification. Used appropriately, AI could help editors discover qualified researchers beyond their existing networks, particularly for interdisciplinary or highly specialized manuscripts. The editor should still make the final judgment about suitability, conflicts of interest, and expertise. Still, better discovery tools could expand the reviewer pool and reduce the burden of finding appropriate reviewers. 

There is also an opportunity to recognize reviewers more visibly for the time and scientific expertise they contribute. Peer review depends heavily on researchers volunteering their time, and finding meaningful ways to acknowledge that contribution could help strengthen and sustain the reviewer community. 

*****

SLAS (Society for Laboratory Automation and Screening) is an international professional society of academic, industry and government life sciences researchers and the developers and providers of laboratory automation technology. The SLAS mission is to bring together researchers in academia, industry and government to advance life sciences discovery and technology via education, knowledge exchange and global community building.

SLAS Discovery reports how scientists develop and use novel technologies and/or approaches to provide and characterize computational, chemical and biological tools to understand and treat human disease. The journal focuses on drug discovery sciences with a strong record of scientific rigor and impact, reporting on research that:

• Enables and improves target validation
• Shares and/or compares novel methods for medium-or high-throughput screening
• Evaluates current drug discovery technologies
• Provides novel research tools
• Incorporates research approaches that enhance depth of knowledge and drug discovery success

SLAS Technology reveals how scientists adapt technological advancements for life sciences exploration and experimentation in biomedical research and development. The journal emphasizes scientific and technical advances that enable and improve:

• Life sciences research and development
• Drug delivery
• Diagnostics
• Biomedical and molecular imaging
• Personalized and precision medicine

SLAS Discovery: Advancing the Science of Drug Discovery, 2024 Impact Factor 2.7. Editor-in-Chief Robert M. Campbell, Ph.D., Grove Biopharma, Inc., Chicago, IL (USA)

SLAS Technology: Translating Life Sciences Innovation, 2024 Impact Factor 3.7. Editor-in-Chief Edward Kai-Hua Chow, PhD, KYAN Technologies, Los Angeles, CA (USA).

 

###