Further to my recent question on a similar topic (As handling editor, should you invite only female reviewers for manuscripts authored by women (eg 1st, last, and/or corresponding)?), I am wondering whether same or different country reviewers should be preferred.
Indeed, as Chief Editor, Associate Editor, or Handling Editor of scholarly manuscripts, mainly but not solely focusing on cardiovascular disease), I have often the last say on which potential reviewers to invite.
It could be argued that different-country reviewers should be more impartial and provide a more externally valid appraisal of a scholarly manuscript (of course keeping review quality high).
Probably, the first author country should be most factored in, but also the other authors', as well as the last one's or the corresponding one's are relevant.
Evidently, this question applies only to peer-review approaches based on open or single-blind review (the author does not know who is reviewing), but not to double-blind review (neither the authors knows who is reviewing nor the reviewer knows who is authoring).
Is this reasonable? Is there any evidence in favor or against this approach?