#reviewer2 — Public Fediverse posts

This coming Wednesday (!) 13 May ReproducibiliTea in the HumaniTeas is delighted to welcome Andrey Anderson dos Santos to speak about Open Peer Review. After a short input talk, we will have plenty of time to discuss this rather controversial topic!

Join us at 16:00 CEST in room 4.006 of the @unibibkoeln for tea and cookies, or online via Zoom (see link sent via our mailing list: https://lists.uni-koeln.de/mailman/listinfo/reproducibilitea-humaniteas).

Andrey recently completed his PhD on #OpenScience practices in the #humanities and is coming all the way from Brazil to Cologne, so don't miss out!

Recommended (optional) reading for preparation: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4.

#reproducibility #ReproducibiliTea #PeerReview #Reviewer2

RE: https://universeodon.com/@zapping/116543941380499579

Ich, wenn das Gutachten von #Reviewer2 reinkommt.

It may just be so that I am a harsher reviewer for software engineer papers about agents than for the others. It just may be so. I have a hunch...

#reviewer2 #AcademicChatter

@postantiquarian especially, if there are dozen maps/plans of the same site, showing different data.... but then he comes, #reviewer2 ^^'

@ProfKinyon well, I appreciate all your service to the profession ... It would be difficult for me to be #Reviewer2 without the Reviewer1s.

I have failed as #Reviewer2 and let the manuscript go with minor corrections.

Next manuscript to review. I do what I must.

#AcademicChatter #Reviewer2 #Reviewer2isMe #reviewer2mustbestopped

RE: https://mastodon.social/@GRETSI_info/115977902557648123

Je fais mon #reviewer2 : belle initiative d'afficher 72 noms de femmes scientifiques, et je déplore une absence dans cette liste : la marquise du Châtelet, femme de lettres, mathématicienne et physicienne française, figure du Siècle des Lumières. Émilie Du Châtelet, un passeur scientifique au XVIIIe siècle
: https://journals.openedition.org/histoire-cnrs/7752

I get the most petty satisfaction at using papers I disagree with as literal fuel for the fire in my wood stove.

#Vermont #Reviewer2

@the_roamer @jschauma
I was really disappointed by this article. It isn't exactly news since this has been happening globally for over a year now. And the analysis was superficial, not looking at wider economic and political factors making the ideal of the university challenging to sustain in a totally f**ked world. Whole thing stank of American exceptionalism and needed a bit of basic research outside the author's personal experience. So speaks #Reviewer2

"More than 20% of chemistry researchers have deliberately added information they believe to be incorrect into their manuscripts during the peer review process, in order to get their papers published."
https://cen.acs.org/policy/publishing/One-five-chemists-deliberately-added/103/web/2025/10

* Primary source
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2025.2564106
(#paywalled)

#AddedValue #Chemistry #PeerReview #Reviewer2 #ScholComm

Time to write the last CHI reviews, so I'm putting on my R2 hat 😈

#chi2026 #academia #Reviewer2 @sigchi

Fed up with having to reconcile comments from Reviewer 1 and #Reviewer2?

At eLife, editors and reviewers discuss their reviews with each other before reaching a consensus, letting you focus on how to improve.
https://elifesciences.org/about/peer-review?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=submissions_organic&utm_content=consultative_fedup

Two weeks since calling out some poor reviewer and editor practices at IOP Publishing, sadly this story continues.

I was looking through comments from #reviewer2, a different reviewer than the #reviewer1, who used #ChatGPT to suggest papers that should have been included, and which were fake, and which was not spotted by the editorial team.

#Reviewer2 seems to have also used a LLM model in their review. I wasn't certain until I got to the suggested references shown here. The hyperlinks look okay, but behind them are references to papers that are all Indian case studies and all with the same authors.

I fed to the review into ChatGPT, asking if there was hallmarks of LLM use. It seems that it is likely this review was.

Hmm, it seems there is more poor reviewer practice, and now, two unethical reviews out of three for one manuscript submission that were not spotted by the editor at Environmental Research Communications.

#academia #academicpublishing

Yay! Convinced #Reviewer2: "I would say your work makes a valuable contribution to addressing the knowledge gap in 'exiled activism' studies, particularly regarding Myanmar exiled activists“. Collaboratively written peer-reviewed article out soon! #activism #Myanmar #exile #anthropology #humanrights

Yay, convinved #reviewer2: "I would say your work makes a valuable contribution to addressing the knowledge gap in 'exiled activism' studies, particularly regarding Myanmar exiled activists“. Collaboratively written peer-reviewed article out soon! #activism #Myanmar #exile #anthropology #humanrights

Have you ever called a conclusion in a paper you're reviewing "ridiculous"?
#Reviewer2 #AcademicChatter #academia #reviewer2isMe

Ever found yourself victim of the dreaded #Reviewer2?

At eLife, reviewers discuss their reviews before reaching a consensus, letting you focus on how to improve. In fact, how, when and even if you revise is up to you.

Learn more about our process ⬇️
https://elifesciences.org/about/peer-review?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=submissions_organic&utm_content=revisions

Asking #Reviewer2
From: @albertcardona
https://mathstodon.xyz/@albertcardona/114909362893802511

Fed up with having to reconcile comments from Reviewer 1 and #Reviewer2?

At eLife, editors and reviewers discuss their reviews with each other before reaching a consensus, letting you focus on how to improve.
https://elifesciences.org/about/peer-review?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=submissions_organic&utm_content=consultative_fedup

#Claude by Anthropic is a great #Reviewer2 🧑‍⚖️.

I just asked it to criticize a #research #article that I was about to submit, and it completely destroyed it 🔪🩸🔪.

It even finished by saying that, at best, it could be a #workshop paper😱

Luckily, the paper was in fact a workshop paper. 😅

And, when given the context, it then said: "For this specific workshop context, I'd rate the paper's chances as strong. It fits the venue perfectly, addresses timely concerns, and provides enough concrete ideas to generate meaningful discussion." 💪👏

I'll let you know in a few weeks whether #claude was right 🤞🤞

I just got a first round #PeerReview where #Reviewer2 just wrote "I did not find anything to comment on and congratulate the authors on a well written manuscript." That's gotta be a first. Reviewer 1 had a number of comments though, but they seem reasonable and constructive.

#AcademicChatter #AcademicPublishing #AcademicWriting

While I’m still negotiating with #Reviewer2 about the number of commas in my paper, my dear friend and esteemed long-time collaborator Ehsan Zabardast went out and build with his team a stunning #startup for tackling the omnipresent issue of phishing: https://gaetir.com

Making AI actually useful, imagine that! Wishing you huge success ahead!

Dear anonymous authors,
#Reviewer2 here. I loved your paper. I understood the idea and I believed in it. I fought for it. I argued. I wept. It still got rejected. It’s not you. It’s me. I let you down. :(
Please don't give up! Dry your tears, revise, resubmit!
The world needs your research!

Last fall, I was writing what I called "the most boring paper in the universe" for an edited volume. I found it so boring that I literally fell asleep multiple times while writing it.

Today I received the reviews. One of them begins with: "This is a fascinating chapter, with numerous well-glossed and useful examples from original documentation research."

ARE THEY PULLING MY LEG OR WHAT.

#academicchatter #Reviewer2 #linguistics

Man, I hate it, when I have to take up the burden to be #reviewer2, but every now and then you get a paper on your desk that simply doesn't cut it or basically consists of just a lot of filler, instead of presenting the data that's actually of interest.

#reviewer2isMe

"Un scientifique, c'est un opposant qui pense!" https://undessinparjour.wordpress.com/2025/05/23/haro-sur-harvard/ #reviewer2

#Reviewer2: This is a very nice and interesting sedimentological paper, but can you maybe make it an ecological paper instead? 🤦

Kommen wir zu #Reviewer2 .

Jetzt merke ich, warum der Editor gewarnt hat.

Reviewer2 bewertet mit "minor Revisions" also durchaus okaye Arbeit.

Satz 1 seines Reviews:
"Es ist erforderlich, dass die Autor*innen folgende zwei relevante Arbeiten zitieren:
doi.org/10.3390/xxxx
doi.org/10.3390/yyyy ."

Habe nachgeschaut. Ich kenne jetzt Reviewer2.
Und es sind (mMn) auch keine richtige Veröffentlichungen, sondern es gehört zu einem #Raubjournal (#predatoryJournal).

Ansonsten hält sich der Reviewer zurück und weist nur auf zwei drei kleinere Punkte hin.

I've backed "Publish or Perish: A Humorous Party Game about Academia" and, trust me, you should too

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/maxhuibai/publish-or-perish-1/

#accademicChatter #Reviewer2 #publishOrPerish

Finally, after over 2 years in internal editing hell, one "out-of-scope-of-the-journal" rejection, a mild case of #reviewer2 and 4 rounds of proof corrections, the paper on our #NeuroOCT #microscope #integrated optical coherence tomography (#oct #opticalcoherencetomography) system and #clinical #study is published.

https://doi.org/10.1364/BOE.530976

#scicomm

In case you wondered, what I've been up to the past 5 years: That. Among other things.

Every now and then you get a review that makes you chuckle. Today's was on a reasonably basic #recsys paper, where #Reviewer2 is an expert in the area ("Very confident - I consider myself an expert in the area"), but does not know what the K in #knn does. :)

Please let's do #openreview in academia. #reviewer2 provided such an excellent and thoughtful line of reasoning for his or her rejection that I would definitely invite him as a co-author. And the fact that this sounds sarcastic shows the need for more openness in our #peerreview system.

In 2011, Schwanhäusser, et al. (Nature, 473(7347) measured #absolute #protein & #mRNA levels for 5000 genes in #mamalian cells and informed us 👇

"Protein & mRNA levels correlates 0.41"

Yet, #Reviewer2 demands:

1. #Proteomics validated by #qPCR
2. #RNAseq based #biomarkers