Premium
Dear Reviewer 2: Go F’ Yourself
Author(s) -
Peterson David A. M.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
social science quarterly
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.482
H-Index - 90
eISSN - 1540-6237
pISSN - 0038-4941
DOI - 10.1111/ssqu.12824
Subject(s) - test (biology) , categorical variable , psychology , social psychology , statistics , mathematics , paleontology , biology
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.