Peer Reviewer 2 is the Worst

Originally published in edublogs, Writing for Learner Engagement. Part of the Class Home Room Blog from a course at the U of T. Posted under Always Something More to Learn, URL

Rejection is a huge part of academic writing.

But let’s step back a bit and review how one would even get to this point. It starts with an idea. Perhaps it is a gap that your institution is trying to address. Perhaps you are investigating a solution for a problem that you can no longer ignore. You invest your time and energy into this project. You read literature. You experiment, interview, survey, explore. You pour your heart and soul into it. The project is huge, so you work with a team, over a period of six months to several years. You write up your research findings in the form of an academic journal article. You are filled with hope. You have produced something that people will want to read. It is important. You scour academic journals to find one that is appropriate to publish your piece in and then you hit submit. You are optimistic. If you make it past the first editorial review, your paper is then forwarded to a group of three peers who will complete a double blind peer review of the piece (i.e.: you don’t know who they are, they don’t know who you are). Your excitement begins to wane.

Peer review has three outcomes. The first and most rare result is that the article is accepted upon first review, with no changes. Second, tentatively accepted with minor/major changes. Or third, and the most likely scenario is that your article will be rejected. Regardless of the outcome, you will receive feedback.

Every time that I have went through this process I have learned a great deal and my writing has been the better for it. If you are lucky, at least one of the reviewers will be thorough, making suggestions throughout the text. From minor grammatical errors, to word choice, to areas that require further explanation, are vague, or should be deleted all together. Then it is back to the drawing board. Your team will need to decide how to incorporate all of the “helpful suggestions” into the work. You are allowed to disagree, but you will need a compelling reason why. You submit it again and hope for the best. Maybe if you are lucky this time, the journal will run the piece. You now move to copyediting, which thankfully is a lot easier. When the final product is published, you often do not recognize it. You have this feeling of “did we write that, it is actually really good”. The editors and reviewers made it so.

But back to reviewer 2, the reviewer who is notorious for making unhelpful suggestions. Don’t believe me, Google it. Titles include “How bad is reviewer 2, really?”, “How not to be reviewer 2” and “How did the myth of reviewer 2 come to be”. For some reason they have earned themselves a horrible reputation, and it is not hard to find many author reflections on how terrible this reviewer is. In my experience, they give you nothing of value. No explanation why they think your piece is not suitable nor are there any suggestions for improvement. So ignore reviewer 2, and concentrate on the other feedback. Even better, cement this knowledge into your brain. Use it in the future. Writing is an iterate process. Learn as you go.

So why did I choose to focus on peer review in this blog post? Because the process recognizes the importance of editing. And what have I learned in module three? I am committing the ultimate writing sin. I am writing and editing at the same time. I am author, editor, and peer reviewer all in one. I am not spewing all of my ideas onto the page, and then returning later to edit. When did I realize that I was doing this? Paragraph three. At that point, I forced myself to just start typing, regardless of polish. Let’s repeat that – paragraph three, not several years ago, not at the beginning of this module, but paragraph three. Why? Well before this class, I honestly never thought about the process too much. It was just what I did.

Now. I have the inevitable blank stare at the screen – what do I actually want to say?

I wonder what comments reviewer 2 will have, if any?