Dear Lal,
Thank you for your willingness to consider a full review. I greatly appreciate your openness and engagement with the material—it adds significant value to the work, regardless of the outcome.
To answer your question: formal peer reviews are indeed typically coordinated at the discretion of the journal’s editorial board, and I fully understand that unsolicited reviews are not the norm. That said, there are two possible paths forward, depending on your comfort level and the journal’s submission procedures:
Option 1: Independent Review Shared Alongside Submission
This would not be an official peer review requested by the editor, but rather a supplemental scholarly review that I submit as part of my cover letter or appendix. It would be clearly labeled as an independent assessment by a subject-matter expert (with your credentials), and I would frame it as a critical perspective that helps delineate the boundaries and speculative nature of the work.
This could:
- Strengthen the submission by showing the work has already undergone cross-disciplinary scrutiny;
- Offer editors additional perspective—even if they later choose to initiate their own peer review process;
- Serve to highlight the diversity of opinion within this space, which is part of the paper’s purpose.
Of course, many of the more prestigious Journals require a double-blind review. However, I do not intend on submitting to these journals. Most of the Journals including Springer, do not require double-blind reviews.
Option 2: Await Journal Invitation for Formal Peer Review
Should the paper move forward in the review process and the journal requests reviewer suggestions, such as in a double-blind review, I would then provide your name—only with your consent. The editor would reach out to you directly, and you could proceed under their usual protocols.
I understand that Option 1 is somewhat unconventional, but in cases like this—where the paper spans two distinct fields and is designed to provoke interdisciplinary discussion—a reviewer with your background provides precisely the balance and insight that could enrich both the editorial process and eventual readership. You may also know of another associate that may be interested in reviewing this paper. Perhaps this would serve to provide additional perspectives and expand the reader population. Therefore, I believe that Option 1 is the way to go.
Please let me know your thoughts, and I’ll proceed according to your preference. Either way, I remain deeply grateful for your engagement.
With sincere respect,
Dipobhasadhamma