Reviewer 2

Peer review has been called the "bedrock of academic publishing."  Whenever you submit a manuscript for potential publication in an academic journal, the editorial staff conducts a quick review to see if the manuscript should be reviewed further.  The next step is for experts in the field (typically anywhere from 2 to 4 reviewers) to review the manuscript to offer both positive and negative (usually more negative than positive) feedback.  The really good reviewers often offer suggestions on how to improve the manuscript.  The manuscript is then returned to the lead author, who then attempts to address the reviewers' feedback.  Once the authors are finished revising the manuscript, they re-submit it to the journal and the same reviewers take a second look in order to decide whether to proceed with publication or not.  I am simplifying the process somewhat, but what I've described is basically the process that all academicians must go through in order to publish their articles.

My experience with peer review (both as an author and as a reviewer) has usually been quite positive.  I've found that in most cases, the reviewers have done a great job helping my fellow co-authors and I to produce a much better article.  I will admit that I've had some reviewers who have been difficult to satisfy, but in most cases I've found that the reviewers were fair, honest, and professional.

There's a claim going around on social media that Reviewer #2 is always the harshest critic.  There are even memes on the Internet about "Reviewer #2" - here's just one example:

So, imagine my surprise (and delight) to find that someone actually published an analysis of 2546 open peer reviews of 796 manuscripts submitted and published in the prestigious journal, British Medical Journal (see "An Empirical Assesment of Reviewer 2").  The authors of this incredible study found that there was no difference in the content of peer reviews between Reviewer 2 and other reviewers for word count, use of negative phrases, use of positive phrases, use of question marks, and use of the word "please".  In other words, Reviewer #2 was indistinguishable from the other Reviewers!

I don't know if this kind of study will lead to any groundbreaking advances in science, but I applaud the authors of the study for adding some levity to the whole world of academic publishing!  And it's reassuring that Reviewer #2 is a good person too!