Campus Units

Political Science

Document Type

Article

Publication Version

Accepted Manuscript

Publication Date

6-25-2020

Journal or Book Title

Social Science Quarterly

DOI

10.1111/ssqu.12824

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this study was to empirically test the wide belief that Reviewer #2 is a uniquely poor reviewer.

Methods

The test involved analyzing the reviewer database from Political Behavior . There are two main tests. First, the reviewer's categorical evaluation of the manuscript was compared by reviewer number. Second, the data were analyzed to test if Reviewer #2 was disproportionately likely to be more than one category below the mean of the other reviewers of the manuscript.

Results

There is no evidence that Reviewer #2 is either more negative about the manuscript or out of line with the other reviewers. There is, however, evidence that Reviewer #3 is more likely to be more than one category below the other reviewers.

Conclusions

Reviewer #2 is not the problem. Reviewer #3 is. In fact, he is such a bad actor that he even gets the unwitting Reviewer #2 blamed for his bad behavior.

Comments

This accepted article is published as Peterson, D.A.M. Dear Reviewer 2: Go F’ Yourself. Social Science Quarterly. June 25, 2020; doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12824.

Language

en

File Format

application/pdf

Available for download on Saturday, June 25, 2022

Published Version

Share

COinS