The practice can occur when researchers submitting a paper for publication suggest reviewers, …
This is obviously corrupt, even with “real” reviewers. I review you, you review me. Our clique reviews each other. I wonder if we’ll approve of each other. Duh.
The original idea behind this was to make the editor’s job easier by suggesting experts in the field, and also to demonstrate that the authors are familiar with other people’s work. The editor is then expected to use this information to aid in the actual selection process, and there is no guarantee that the editor will actually pick who the author suggested. In reality, what sometimes happens is lazy editors simply picking whoever the author suggested.
This is obviously corrupt, even with “real” reviewers. I review you, you review me. Our clique reviews each other. I wonder if we’ll approve of each other. Duh.
The original idea behind this was to make the editor’s job easier by suggesting experts in the field, and also to demonstrate that the authors are familiar with other people’s work. The editor is then expected to use this information to aid in the actual selection process, and there is no guarantee that the editor will actually pick who the author suggested. In reality, what sometimes happens is lazy editors simply picking whoever the author suggested.