Peer review is the bedrock of academic publishing, a meticulous process designed to ensure the quality and credibility of research before it reaches the wider audience. At the heart of this process are the reviewers, experts in their respective fields who evaluate research manuscripts. But one figure has become legendary in academic circles: Reviewer 2. In this article, we will dive into the role of Reviewer 2 and offer strategies to handle feedback from this reviewer effectively.
Peer Review and Peer Reviewers
Before we delve into the mysterious Reviewer 2, let’s acknowledge the importance of peer review. It acts as a gatekeeper, ensuring that only high-quality, reliable, and credible research sees the light of day. Peer reviewers, often called referees, are experts in their fields who are responsible for testing ideas, scrutinizing hypotheses, and validating research findings to ensure research integrity. Peer reviewers comments and recommendations are instrumental in guiding authors toward improved research quality and shaping the final published work. However, one role among the reviewers has acquired notoriety: Reviewer 2.
Who is Reviewer 2?
When it comes to peer review, Reviewer 2 has emerged as an infamous character, often invoking negative reactions in academic discourse. Peer reviewers are expected to uncover potential flaws, biases, or limitations in the research, and Reviewer 2 typically represents the harshest and most critical reviewer among a manuscript’s evaluators. While the identity of Reviewer 2 remains a mystery, they are the toughest and most challenging for authors to appease.
Reviewer 2: Stereotypes and Perceptions
Reviewer 2 is not without its stereotypes and misconceptions, many of which are expressed on social media through memes about why is reviewer 2 bad. Some common issues with Reviewer 2 include:
- Excessive Criticism: Reviewer 2 is often seen as overly critical and uncompromising, passing caustic comments that can be offensive or discouraging for authors.
- Lack of Understanding: Authors sometimes believe that Reviewer 2 does not fully scrutinize the article and comprehend the research.
- Resistance to Change: Authors may perceive Reviewer 2 as resistant to accepting revisions, often falling back on their ‘boxed in’ understanding of the field.
- Unnecessary Revisions: Some authors field comments that insist on citing reviewer 2’s work in their research manuscript or requests for major revisions without proper reasoning.
Impact of Reviewer 2 in Peer Review
Reviewer 2’s often biased, unproductive, and harsh criticisms can have a detrimental impact. It can result in authors doubting themselves and becoming skeptical of their own scientific research abilities. Potentially innovative and good manuscripts that can be developed through constructive feedback can, through harsh criticisms, be withdrawn or dropped altogether. Most importantly, this can seriously affect women, people of color, and non-binary individuals who even otherwise experience various hurdles.
While there is widespread negativity around Reviewer 2, there are various studies that indicate it may be wrong to view reviewer 2 comments in such harsh light. Like other referees, Reviewer 2 plays a crucial role in improving the rigor and validity of a manuscript, and their comments can significantly impact the final outcome of a research manuscript. While their critiques may be rigorous, often blunt and even negative, they often prompt authors to deliver a more refined piece of work. This is why authors should view Reviewer 2’s comments as an opportunity for growth and improvement rather than an adversary.
How to Handle Feedback from Reviewer 2
While receiving feedback from Reviewer 2 can be challenging, it’s essential to approach it constructively. Here are some strategies to effectively respond to peer reviewer comments, especially those from reviewer 2.
- Stay Calm and Objective: Emotions can run high, but it’s crucial to remain calm and objective when reading comments from Reviewer 2. It can be helpful to pause for a day of two before responding to any negative comments.
- Analyze Feedback Thoroughly: Carefully analyze each comment and suggestion, considering how it can improve the quality of your research.
- Use Feedback to Enhance: Constructive criticism is invaluable in the pursuit of academic excellence, pushing authors to refine their work further. Embrace reviewer comments as an opportunity for improvement, making necessary revisions to strengthen your manuscript.
- Seek Clarification: Where there are conflicting comments by two different reviewers, closely reflect on each of their comments and decide which comment you will choose to implement. If a comment is unclear or seems unreasonable, don’t hesitate to seek clarification from the editor or reviewer.
- Constructive Dialogue: Engage in constructive dialogue with Reviewer 2 through the editor if necessary, focusing on the research’s merit and improvement potential. Even when you do not agree with a comment by the reviewers, it is expected that you present well-rounded justifications in a convincing and polite manner.
- Respond Professionally: Make sure that you are responding to each of the reviewer’s comments clearly without taking on a defensive tone. In cases where you are unable to reach a consensus with the reviewer even after several rounds of review, it is best to take the advice of the editor.
It’s important for authors to approach Reviewer 2’s comments with a growth mindset, recognizing the value of constructive criticism in elevating the quality and impact of research. That being said, as the academic publishing landscape continues to evolve, both authors and reviewers, including reviewer 2, need to adapt to the changing dynamics of peer review, with an emphasis on transparency, constructive feedback, and continuous improvement.
Researcher.Life is a subscription-based platform that unifies top AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline a researcher’s journey, from reading to writing, submission, promotion and more. Based on over 20 years of experience in academia, Researcher.Life empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success.
Try for free or sign up for the Researcher.Life All Access Pack, a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI academic writing assistant, literature reading app, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional services from Editage. Find the best AI tools a researcher needs, all in one place – Get All Access now at just $25 a month or $199 for a year!
