Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 24, 2025

Evaluating Usability Aspects of a Mixed Reality Solution for Immersive Analytics in Industry 4.0 Scenarios
Published on: October 6, 2020
An Empirical Assessment of Reviewer 2
Christopher Worsham1,2,3, Jaemin Woo1, André Zimerman4
1Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract:
According to research lore, the second peer reviewer (Reviewer 2) is believed to rate research manuscripts more harshly than the other reviewers. The purpose of this study was to empirically investigate this common belief. We measured word count, positive phrases, negative phrases, question marks, and use of the word "please" in 2546 open peer reviews of 796 manuscripts published in the British Medical Journal. There was no difference in the content of peer reviews between Reviewer 2 and other reviewers for word count (630 vs 606, respectively, P = .16), negative phrases (8.7 vs 8.4, P = .29), positive phrases (4.2 vs 4.1, P = .10), question marks (4.8 vs 4.6, P = .26), and uses of "please" (1.0 vs 1.0, P = .86). In this study, Reviewer 2 provided reviews of equal sentiment to other reviewers, suggesting that popular beliefs surrounding Reviewer 2 may be unfounded.
More Related Videos
08:40Isokinetic Robotic Device to Improve Test-Retest and Inter-Rater Reliability for Stretch Reflex Measurements in Stroke Patients with Spasticity
Published on: June 12, 2019
08:22A Novel Single Animal Motor Function Tracking System Using Simple, Readily Available Software
Published on: August 31, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Friedman Two-way Analysis of Variance by Ranks
Empirical Method to Interpret Standard Deviation
This rule is used widely in statistics to calculate the proportion of data values...
Feedback Inhibition
Group Design
Comparing Experimental Results: Student's t-Test
Self-Evaluation: Self-Enhancement and Self-Verification