Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
Social science quarterly, 2020-07, Vol.101 (4), p.1648-1652
Ort / Verlag
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Erscheinungsjahr
2020
Quelle
Wiley-Blackwell Journals
Beschreibungen/Notizen
Objectives
The objective of this study was to empirically test the wide belief that Reviewer #2 is a uniquely poor reviewer.
Methods
The test involved analyzing the reviewer database from Political Behavior. There are two main tests. First, the reviewer's categorical evaluation of the manuscript was compared by reviewer number. Second, the data were analyzed to test if Reviewer #2 was disproportionately likely to be more than one category below the mean of the other reviewers of the manuscript.
Results
There is no evidence that Reviewer #2 is either more negative about the manuscript or out of line with the other reviewers. There is, however, evidence that Reviewer #3 is more likely to be more than one category below the other reviewers.
Conclusions
Reviewer #2 is not the problem. Reviewer #3 is. In fact, he is such a bad actor that he even gets the unwitting Reviewer #2 blamed for his bad behavior.