Merker für mich: #Reviewer2 erklären, was ein Violin-Plot ist und das Originalpaper zitieren: https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1998.10480559

I am so excited. I just received a request to review a manuscript that is 100% in my wheelhouse. Let's be honest, this happens rarely.

Let's hope it's good!

#academia #Reviewer2

@brudibrau An dem Punkt bin ich auch gerade.

Was aber beim aktuellen Review total merkwürdig ist: #Reviewer2 macht vernünftige Kommentare. Darf er das überhaupt?

People lower down on the ranked list, who are even less likely to accept, are invited to review. At some point, one of them will accept the review for reasons that have nothing to do with your paper (boredom, feeling guilty, bad day…). This is #Reviewer2, who will not like your paper and tell you that you must change absolutely everything in it – to turn it into a paper they would have liked to read. (3/4)

Here is my theory of #Reviewer2 – I’m curious to hear whether you find plausible!

It is commonly claimed that in any set of reviewers, #Reviewer2 is the really mean one. Here’s why:

You submit a paper to a journal. The journal uses an algorithm to assign reviewers. The algorithm is based on a comparison between the paper’s reference list and reference lists of published papers. It results in a ranked list of reviewers, with the best matches at the top. (1/4)

@academicchatter

@academicchatter
Thank you for participating in my little survey on acceptance of review invitations. The result is obviously not representative - Mastodon users seem to review much more than average academics do. But the variation is interesting and relevant for my theory of #Reviewer2 which I will post later today!

@academicchatter

What percentage of review requests you receive from academic journals do you accept?

This information is relevant for my ultimate theory of #Reviewer2 which I will share with you as a reward for participating 😀

Just submitted a paper for peer review!! It's been a while. So long that I'm even looking forward to #Reviewer2's surly evaluation. #AcademicChatter #histodons

So, #Reviewer1 praised the paper and asked for 2 minor changes that took me about 1 minute each to do. #Reviewer2 sat down, grabbed a cup of coffee, got comfortable, snapped their fingers, and asked for three ****ing pages of points to change, with topics and subtopics.

If you ever feel bad about a peer review report, remember that a past president of the American Chemical Society got this helpful comment from #Reviewer2. #academia

Mastodon, I really, really don't want to be #Reviewer2, but this paper is so, so bad. It's like a bright undergrad or master's student who knows the basics of brms wrote it.

@hellma without knowing the details its hard to judge.

Both might possible: a dissapointed #Reviewer2 who gave non-related concerns.
Or a journal which ignores substantial doubts.

The first I already encountered. The second would be way more critical.

I'll boost to se if we find people who have some experiemce with that specific journal.
@a32

I know we bash on #Reviewer2 here a lot, but I just had to assume that role.

I wasn't mean or rude, but kindly pointed out the flaws that needed to be addressed to make the paper better. I did my job.

Sometimes feedback has to hurt a little.

I can be #Reviewer2

Feel free to review my review.

https://replicationindex.com/2023/03/05/gaslighting-about-replication-failures/

Having one's paper rejected by reviewer 2 is always a painful experience. Fortunately, this time, reviewer 1 made my day:

- Reviewer 2: "I am doing a quick turn around on this ms because I do not believe the data are of sufficient interest or significance to merit publication. I wish I could offer a way to salvage the paper."

- Reviewer 1: "Above all I should admit really appreciating the work presented, ranking it as the most interesting I have read over the last few years. Clearly predefined hypotheses; statistical analyses defined prior to data collection; easy access to all data and software; modelling of the empirical observations; and a measurement paradigm novel to our field: the MS has all the ingredients one expects in high quality research. Hence I take the opportunity to thank and congratulate the authors with their work."

#academicmastodon #academicChatter @academicchatter #Reviewer2 #Reviewer2MustBeStopped

Having one's paper rejected by reviewer 2 is always a painful experience. Fortunately, this time, reviewer 1 made my day:

- Reviewer 2: "I am doing a quick turn around on this ms because I do not believe the data are of sufficient interest or significance to merit publication. I wish I could offer a way to salvage the paper."

- Reviewer 1: "Above all I should admit really appreciating the work presented, ranking it as the most interesting I have read over the last few years. Clearly predefined hypotheses; statistical analyses defined prior to data collection; easy access to all data and software; modelling of the empirical observations; and a measurement paradigm novel to our field: the MS has all the ingredients one expects in high quality research. Hence I take the opportunity to thank and congratulate the authors with their work."

#academicmastodon
#Reviewer2 #Reviewer2MustBeStopped

#writing #academia #Reviewer2

Oh no, what have I become?
#reviewer2 😟

Oh no, what have I become?
#reviewer2 😟

Anyone who composes critical reviews of manuscripts must apprise themselves of Rapoport's Rules.

Snippet source: Daniel Dennett, Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking (2012)

#AcWri #Reviewer2