Dear Reviewer 2

Go F’ Yourself

Bibliographic Data

ID10763870
AuthorsDrexel A Peterson (0000-0002-5673-4826, Iowa State University, corresponding author), David A M Peterson
Year2020
Volume101
Issue4
Pages1648-1652
Publication date2020-07-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueSocial Science Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0038-4941 • E-ISSN: 1540-6237
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/ssqu.12824
OpenAlexW3037857204
LanguageEN
Citations received13
References cited6

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

Categorical variable · Statistics · Test (biology) · Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance · Expert finding and Q&A systems · Mathematics · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOI