How to be reviewer 2: Lessons in academic curmudgeonry

Abstract

Academic publishing is both incredibly rewarding for authors and fraught with frustration and challenges. One such challenge is navigating critical peer reviews that can seem demeaning, condescending, or outright cruel. Colloquially, such reviews have been personified as “reviewer 2” on social media and in the literature. While some reviewer 2s may belittle authors on purpose, we believe most unintentionally do so due to a paucity of reviewing experience, challenges with establishing a rapport‐building tone in their review writing or a different understanding of what type of language is destructive and demeaning. Given the amount of time, effort and care that authors pour into their manuscripts, it can be easier to visualise reviewer 2s as Scrooge‐like curmudgeons whose purpose in life is to bring misery to other scholars. In this manuscript, the authors use their experience in Medical Education's editorial internship as a framing to create a caricature of the miserly reviewer 2. The authors hope that by creating such an absurd lampoon, they encourage readers to consider that most reviewer 2s are simply in need of coaching rather than personality transplants.

Short abstract

Tired of all the bullying, past Medical Education interns come to Reviewer 2's defence, presenting them as the hero of academic publishing while sharing tips for embracing your inner curmudgeon. #MedEducUnleashed

Some people say, “Don't be Reviewer 2!” ¹ but who wants to listen to those crybabies? Everyone loves a good curmudgeon. They're necessary in every story, from Ebeneezer Scrooge to Statler and Waldorf (of Muppets' fame). Curmudgeons are like the Dutch boy holding his finger in the dam, preventing academia from crumbling and letting a flood of nonsense into our field.

In the world of academic publication, peer review looms large. To achieve this, multiple experts (or whoever is available and willing) will read, review and provide feedback on a manuscript, which informs the editor as to whether the article is deemed high enough quality to be bestowed the highest non‐monetary prize: publication. Three reviewers are sought for many submissions. Reviewer 1 goes unnoticed and Reviewer 3 is a bit of teacher's pet providing constructive criticism, but Reviewer 2 in recent times has gotten a bit of a bad rap. ¹ Authors describe Reviewer 2 as being rude, unhelpful, self‐important and unnecessarily focused on personal agendas. ¹ We are here to challenge this notion and defend the honour of Reviewer 2.

Our views on the topic were cemented during our shared Medical Education editorial internship. ² While the internship is marketed as an opportunity to observe, learn and be welcomed gently into the world of academic publication, unbeknownst to most, the internship is in fact a pathway to the upper echelons of Reviewer 2 society. Naturally, we are inherently irritable, cranky individuals, and we strongly suspect this is why we were selected for this eminent guild.

During our year with Medical Education, we focused our time learning how journals train their best Reviewer 2s. Medical Education showed us their entire training protocol, which we will reveal here, in the interest of inspiring the next generation of cantankerous reviewers. In this article, we draw back the curtains of Reviewer 2 training and unveil the secrets of this prestigious society. While not everyone may be as lucky as we were to complete the Medical Education internship, we hope that readers will consider applying the tips to unlock your inner Reviewer 2 potential when performing a peer review of an academic manuscript.

1. PREPARATION

Start your Reviewer 2 journey with an invigorating ice‐cold shower just before reading the manuscript. The cold‐induced peripheral vasoconstriction shunts blood toward the amygdala, where emotions such as rage and disgust originate.

2. STIMULATION

If you drink caffeine—skip it that day. A throbbing headache helps. If you do not drink caffeine, then have some. A little cognitive and emotional over responsiveness is also helpful. If your headache starts to retreat and you feel your mood lightening, feel free to doom‐scroll social media until you are again angry at the world.

3. SACRIFICE

Bid farewell to fun outings with friends and family. Who needs social interaction when you can bask in the glow of scholarly superiority? Channel your FOMO (i.e. Fear Of Missing Out) into angst directed at the author(s).

4. AMBIANCE

Set the mood by playing awful bands such as Nickelback or other auditory atrocities. Nothing fuels righteous indignation quite like terrible music.

5. PERSPECTIVE

Picture the authors as smug know‐it‐alls, confident in their belief that you will adore their manuscript and accept it immediately with the most ingratiating feedback. Let this guide your critique: This will energise you to knock those self‐righteous authors down a peg with each comment.

6. FEEDBACK

Provide destructive criticism, liberally sprinkled with sarcasm. If there are multiple ways a research study could be designed, always emphasise that they chose the wrong one. This is in fact a form of external faculty development that you are providing, helping authors find a sense of humility.

7. ASSERTIVENESS

If you have written any manuscripts, blog posts or post‐it notes that are in any way even tangentially related to the topic of the paper you are reviewing, demand that they cite your work. This may require you to change their research question for them, but it is all for the better.

8. CLARITY

Ambiguity can help bring clarity for authors. Feel free to copy‐paste the following sentences in your reviews “This sentence feels awkward” or “I'm not sure I enjoy this bit”. Do not offer reference to specific page or line numbers for fear of being too helpful to the author.

9. EMPHASIS

Adverbs, adverbs, adverbs! Why use one word when you can use twenty? For example, instead of “The problem‐gap‐hook could be written more clearly”, you should write “The absurdly nonsensically vaguely worded problem‐gap‐hook could be written substantially and definitively more clearly”. We have coined the phrase ‘academic avalanching’ for this technique as the author's hopes and dreams of publication are washed away and buried beneath the impenetrable deluge of excess words.

10. ANONYMITY

It is wise to remember that as an aspiring Reviewer 2, you are basically a superhero, and like all superheroes, it is essential to mask your identity. This is purely to protect those around you from excessive attention and not at all related to hiding your rather dubious true self from your lovely colleagues. Be safe and smart: when prompted, tick the box to ‘withhold name’. Anonymise your work in order to surround your brilliant reviews in an air of mystery.

11. GRATITUDE

And finally, always remember to thank the authors and editors—manners maketh the Reviewer 2, after all, and guarantees that you will be called upon for future reviews.

Dear reader, we hope this guide helps you become a devastatingly effective Reviewer 2, all while further eroding faith in the peer review process. You will likely encounter well‐meaning academics who insist that Reviewer 2s are just inexperienced or oblivious to the harm they cause. They might even believe Reviewer 2s can be coached into becoming Reviewer 1s (perpetually positive) or Reviewer 3s (harmlessly vague). These same naïve optimists may suggest that while the peer review process is imperfect, it is one of academia's most powerful tools for truth‐seeking and course‐correction. However, we are showing you the truth: Reviewer 2s are highly skilled saboteurs, trained by their experiences of academic journals (perhaps as a receiver of similarly negative feedback for their own submissions) to pay forward their annoyances and crush the spirits of well‐meaning authors while simultaneously undermining the entire pursuit of knowledge. We implore you to forego any perspective‐taking and to cling to the ego‐protective cynicism that allows all of us to brush off Reviewer 2s and to continue rolling our eyes at academic publishing.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Benjamin Kinnear: Conceptualization; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Lynelle Govender: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing; project administration. Helen R. Church: Writing—original draft; writing—review and editing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors do not have any potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

ETHICS STATEMENT

Ethics approval was not required for this manuscript.

Kinnear B, Govender L, Church HR. How to be reviewer 2: Lessons in academic curmudgeonry. Med Educ. 2026;60(1):79‐81. doi: 10.1111/medu.15679

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.