Should you ever pick "recommended" or "opposed" reviewers for journal submissions in social science?

Question

This question applies to all disciplines but I am curious here about social science journals in particular. Is it ever a good idea to name/identify specific reviewers that you would like to have them assess your work, or opposed reviewers? If so, when is this acceptable professionally?

I see this question a lot in polsci and economics journals where part of a journal submission process would be a question as follows:

Please choose your recommended or opposed reviewers below, if any.

I ask because the only cases that I anecdotally of coworkers selecting an "opposed" reviewer are those where two scholars might have been or currently are in a relationship and happen to publish in the same area in their discipline.

Meanwhile, the other case that I know of a person selecting a "recommended" reviewer was a former PhD colleague who selected someone who was essentially their informal advisor throughout the PhD thesis, which I thought was unethical as they may have a positive bias towards that person's research since they supported them through comments and feedback. However, beyond the cases above, I cannot think of a reason why social science journals include this question as a requirement for submitting research.

Answer 1

I'll leave aside the question of "suggested reviewers" which seems a bit different and assume the author(s) get to make recommendations from a list.

There are many reasons for "recommended" or "opposed" and, unless the editor asks "why?" there isn't any way to know the mind of the author. What it does, however, is give the editor a bit of additional information about how to interpret reviews. One reason for opposing a reviewer is a bad history with a person and an expectation that they might not be impartial. That is a conflict beyond the ordinary conflict of interest.

One reason for recommending a reviewer (best case) is that the reviewer is known to be very knowledgeable in the subject matter. And, of course, (worst case) is that the author thinks the person is guaranteed to give a favorable review with minimal suggested changes.

But, the editor needs to choose appropriate reviewers, which doesn't exclude recommended or opposed suggestions from the author. They can make a judgment in reading the review in light of the additional "bit" of information, discounting some things in some cases.

Choosing only recommended or only opposed reviewers would be a mistake and counterproductive (even unethical in some cases).

Ideally the editor has some history with the reviewers they choose and can make a good judgement about how to interpret their reviews when especially positive or negative. That is the ideal world. In the real world, the editor wants all the information available so that the journal publishes appropriately and maintains its reputation.

So, yes, the editor can choose some of the reviewers from either heap, though it might be better in practice to choose based on prior history or knowledge about the reviewer. The goal is quality, not gamesmanship, one hopes.