#reviewer2 — Public Fediverse posts

Whenever I learn about a new statistical method:

Do I know what I'm doing?
- Highly debatable

Do I hope for the best?
- 100%

It's not helping that I need to run things on an #HPC, so my failing forward is hogging resources.

I sincerely hope #Reviewer2 is not reading my toots, but at least the results look plausible.

#AcademicLife #PostdocLife #AcademicChatter #PhDLife #OverlyHonestMethods

How many times I'll need to explain to our dear #Reviewer2 that submitting my own #arxiv paper to a conference is not #selfplagiarism 🤔🤷

There is a lot of discussion on the use of #AI for #reviewing but, for sure, I'd use #AI to automatically #flag bad reviews (according to a number of criteria, including the above but also based on the lenght of the review, use of toxic words, or even asking for validation on a new ideas paper 😁, another one of my pet peeves)

Ah, ein größerer Drittmittelantrag wurde abelehnt.

Unter anderem bemängelt #Reviewer2 (wer auch sonst …) die ungenügende Auflösung der Datensätze von „65 µm“.
Ja, das wäre in der Tat schlecht. Unsere Voxelgröße liegt allerdings bei 0,65 µm.

🥴

I do love a Reviewer 2 who critiques, in great gen-AI detail, the article they (or chatgpt) think I OUGHT to have written, rather than the article I actually DID write. Very sweet of them, isn't it?

Oh well. Far be it from me to write Reviewer 2's article for them – including their preferred citations. I've got a better idea: I'll just withdraw my manuscript from the journal and put it up somewhere accessible to everyone (preprint server, researchgate, or whatever), together with the reviewers' reports and the editor's requirement to revise according to every detail of Reviewer 2's report.

What they don't know is that I am not at all desperate to publish in that (or, indeed, any) journal, and that I'd rather just get the results of my actual research out for those who will benefit.
#academicchatter #Reviewer2

I just want to note that on a paper about something in the Middle East, a reviewer (supposedly, a learned individual) gave us the comment: "For non-European readers as well, it would be helpful to include a map of Europe."

#Reviewer2 #Geography

@Rhodium103 This should be mandatory for the paper reviewers to understand.

I would also add that not all actionable and consequential feedback needs to be instantly implemented. Sometimes it should be bookmarked for future work.

#Reviewer2

How do you call this when you are writing a paper and your inner #reviewer2 wakes up and requires revisions?

I was the quite negative #reviewer2 (justified, I would say), on a manuscript that got a very positive review from the first reviewer. Seems I may have single-handedly killed the submission. Oh, how the tables have turned...

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.

@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.

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!