An Empirical Assessment of Reviewer 2

Worsham, Christopher; Woo, Jaemin; Zimerman, André; Bray, Charles F.; Jena, Anupam B.

doi:10.1177/00469580221090393

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The term “Reviewer 2” is pervasive in academic publishing, representing a reviewer displaying unethical behaviour during the review process (Peterson, 2020; Timmermans and Tavory, 2022; Worsham et al , 2022). However, the ambiguity arises: who defines Reviewer 2?…”

Section: The Evolving Landscape Of Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Viewpoint: the evolving landscape of peer review

Mogaji

2024

JSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this viewpoint is to spotlight the role of reviewers within the collaborative triad of academic publishing. It argues that the significance of reviewers is often disregarded, leading to a gap in our understanding of the peer review process. This perspective emphasizes reviewers as unsung heroes in the publishing ecosystem, providing intentional and thought-provoking insights into the less-discussed yet impactful developments in the evolving peer review landscape. Design/methodology/approach Leveraging the author’s distinguished background as a recipient of the Journal of Service Marketing Outstanding Reviewer Award, this paper offers a personal reflection and synthesised viewpoints on the peer review process. Serving as a representative voice for reviewers, it provides insightful perspectives from the vantage point of a peer reviewer, diverging from conventional editorials and commentaries authored by editors. Findings Acknowledging the shrinking reviewer pool, this viewpoint suggests a mandatory “review for review” system alongside incentives like editorial positions, while considering financial rewards for reviewers. The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in review prompts ethical concerns but offers solutions for handling diverse submissions and dealing with “Reviewer 2.” While embracing open review for its transparency, potential pitfalls surrounding article confidence and copyright require attention. Ultimately, this viewpoint advocates for a collaborative approach, valuing reviewers, exploring innovative solutions, navigating ethical dilemmas in the technological age and implementing transparent practices responsibly for the betterment of scholarly discourse. Originality/value This viewpoint highlights the invaluable contributions of reviewers, enriching the scholarly community and promoting intellectual growth.

show abstract

Section: The Evolving Landscape Of Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The triad relationship between editor, reviewer, and author is pivotal, with roles evolving, and we must be conversant about these challenges (Cranford, 2020; Worsham et al , 2022) – it could be you dealing with Reviewer 2 next time. I propose three strategies to tackle challenges posed by difficult reviewers.…”

Section: The Evolving Landscape Of Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Viewpoint: the evolving landscape of peer review

Mogaji

2024

JSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…New authors are often afraid of reviewers. There is popular lore that "reviewer 2" is the more dangerous one amongst all, though this has not been validated [20]. The onus is also on the reviewer to refute this picture.…”

Section: The Reviewer As a Supporter Rather Than A Criticmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peering, Viewing and Reviewing: What Makes a Peer Review Good

Ahmed

2022

CAJMHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer review is an integral part of an ethical scientific publication process. Though not perfect, it has not been replaceable in the last couple of centuries since the advent of scientific journals. Recent innovations include online anonymized credits for peer review that can be used to augment an academician’s resume. Submissions and retraction are ever growing, increasing the demands from peer reviewers. The rewards may not seem commensurate but any person of science should contribute to peer review as a guardian of science. This short review looks at the ideal peer review along with inherent challenges. It makes suggestions on how novice and intermediate reviewers can improve their contributions as well as introduces various resources relevant for peer review.

show abstract

“…All have recollections of peer-review engagement that through their individual lens’ has spanned the continuum of helpfulness and quality, and most would report having encountered the widely recounted, but fortunately disproven, phenomenon of ‘Reviewer 2’. 7,8…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%