In the corridors of academia, whispered tales of the dreaded “Reviewer 2” have become legendary. This mythical figure, often portrayed as the harshest critic in the peer review process, has inspired countless memes, frustrated rants, and academic folklore. But what does the evidence actually tell us about this phenomenon? Is Reviewer 2 truly the academic villain they’re made out to be, or is this perception more myth than reality?

The Empirical Truth Behind Reviewer 2

Recent groundbreaking research has challenged the long-held belief about Reviewer 2’s supposed harshness. A comprehensive study published in Inquiry (2022) by Worsham and colleagues analyzed an extensive dataset from the British Medical Journal, examining multiple dimensions of reviewer behavior.

The researchers measured several key indicators:

• Total word count of reviews
• Frequency of positive phrases
• Frequency of negative phrases
• Number of question marks (indicating inquiry vs. criticism)
• Use of polite language (specifically the word “please”)

Beyond the Numbers: Systemic Challenges and Biases

While quantitative analysis may absolve Reviewer 2 of excessive harshness, qualitative research reveals more nuanced challenges within the peer review system. The perception of Reviewer 2 as problematic may stem from deeper systemic issues rather than individual reviewer behavior.

The LGBTQ+ Scholar Experience

Research by Nopas (2025) focusing on LGBTQ+ scholars in Southeast Asia uncovered that Reviewer 2 often symbolizes systemic gatekeeping and institutional biases. These scholars face unique challenges that extend beyond simple negativity:

• Dismissive Feedback: Research labeled as “too niche” or “not of general interest”
• Linguistic Barriers: Criticism focused on language rather than content
• Heteronormative Biases: Assumptions that marginalize LGBTQ+ perspectives
• Eurocentric Standards: Preference for Western methodologies and frameworks

These findings suggest that the “Reviewer 2 problem” may be less about individual harshness and more about structural inequities in academic publishing.

The Essential Role of Peer Review

Despite the challenges and perceptions surrounding Reviewer 2, it’s crucial to recognize the fundamental importance of peer review in maintaining scientific integrity. According to recent studies by Edström et al. (2023) and Ozkaya (2021), effective peer review serves several critical functions:

Best Practices for Reviewers

Research by Siau, Kulkarni, and El-Omar (2022) outlines essential qualities of effective reviewers, which apply equally to all reviewers, including the often-maligned Reviewer 2:

• Constructive Feedback: Focus on improving the manuscript rather than merely criticizing
• Timeliness: Respect deadlines to maintain publication efficiency
• Confidentiality: Maintain strict confidentiality of reviewed materials
• Conflict Management: Declare and avoid conflicts of interest
• Respectful Tone: Maintain professional and courteous communication

Moving Forward: Reforming Peer Review

The conversation around Reviewer 2 highlights broader issues in academic publishing that require systematic attention. As noted by Prpić et al. (2025), accepting reviewer duties is crucial for the scientific community’s health, but this must be balanced with addressing systemic biases and promoting inclusivity.

Key reforms being discussed include:

• Implementation of double-blind review processes
• Diversification of reviewer pools
• Training programs for new reviewers
• Recognition systems for quality reviewing
• Open peer review models for transparency

Conclusion: Reframing the Narrative

The myth of the universally harsh Reviewer 2 appears to be just that—a myth. Empirical evidence suggests that Reviewer 2 is no more critical than their counterparts. However, the persistence of this belief points to real challenges in the peer review system that deserve attention.

Rather than vilifying Reviewer 2, the academic community should focus on addressing systemic biases, promoting inclusive review practices, and recognizing the essential role all reviewers play in maintaining scientific quality. The conversation sparked by the “Reviewer 2 phenomenon” provides an opportunity to reflect on and improve the peer review process for all stakeholders.