Sometimes I’m Reviewer 2. Here’s what you should know.

These tips can help you in the review process.

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

We’ve all been frightened by the feedback of the ominous reviewer 2: the sunny first responder’s dark companion. Yet the reviewer 2s of the world (like me on occasion) aren’t (typically) inherently malevolent or out to reject your manuscript. Ignoring the few bad apples, fair critiques of academic work often stem from a handful of common mistakes. Learning to avoid these 10 missteps can increase your likelihood of the coveted revise & resubmit and your overall success as a scholar.

1. Not following the rules. Nothing irritates reviewers and editors more that deviation from established guidelines. Page limits, formatting standards, and citation styles are listed for a reason. Read and adhere to all of the journal guidelines (usually founder under “instructions for authors”) and the latest version of the required citation style.
2. Overusing jargon and thesaurus-generated words. Be clear and direct in your writing. If the paper doesn’t make sense to the reviewers, they aren’t going to recommend its publication.
3. Deviating from the paper outline of your discipline and the journal. You should know the manuscript sections expected for your area of study and the journal. If you don’t, look at past issues of the journal to find out what published scholars have done. Model your paper organization after existing articles, including all of the expected elements. Don’t skip sections. This is not a creative writing exercise.
4. Burying the paper’s purpose. It shouldn’t feel like slowly peeling the layers of an onion to get to your manuscript’s objective. Within the first page and a half (or less), your statement of purpose should be clearly stated.
5. Skimping on the literature review or giving an academic laundry list. Scholars are asked to review because they are experts in the field. They will notice if you didn’t acknowledge the big studies or names related to your topic (especially if you failed to cite their work). A solid overview of existing scholarship is a must-have for every academic paper. Outlining the relevant literature and establishing the gap in what has been done sets up and justifies your research (and reason for the publication). On a related note, your literature shouldn’t feel as if someone is reciting Google Scholar. Weave together what has been done into a cohesive narrative that builds to your study.
6. Including a muddled method section. Regardless of your epistemological position and approach, the method needs to specifically state what you did and why for your primary research. Give readers as much information as you can, listing (as relevant to your discipline) your research questions/hypotheses, methodology, sample, and how you conducted your research (means of analysis, statistical programs used, etc.). If you studied people, we should know the relevant info about the people and the process of study. If you analyzed films, we should know what films, how they were chosen, and the process of examination. Adding surveys, tables and other organized guides in the appendices to provide a methodological map for your readers.
7. For qualitative papers: Losing the reader in “Example Land.” Qualitative research can be difficult to write up, especially if you are providing many quotations and examples. Don’t let your support take over the findings section. Your words and ideas should guide the reader through, aided by subheads and topic sentences.
8. For quantitative papers: Losing the reader in “Number Land.” In turn, quantitative research can sometimes be too dependent on reporting the numbers and that’s it. At some point in your manuscript (preferably near the end), the meaning and significance of your numerical results should be evident in text.
9. Underselling or overselling what your research accomplishes. You should be confident that your work matters and include a strong justification in your manuscript. At the same time, be mindful of what your research can achieve and avoid generalizing beyond your objective. Your purpose and conclusions can only be as broad as the scope of the research and method allow. That’s okay.
10. Demonstrating your “conclusion fatigue.” Too often, writers wear out and quickly produce too-short conclusion sections. Take the time to reflect and articulate what your research means in the larger scope of the area of study. The end of your paper leaves the last impression on your reader.

Most reviewers want to be helpful. After all, it’s an anonymous process with little reward other than giving back to the field. Yes, you can throw out the truly ridiculous critiques, like “need to sample [insert an additional population/set of texts/other component that would add 10 years to the work]” or “must include [title of book published 200 years ago in a language you don’t speak, of which the only available copy was printed in segments on the back of a historical document].” For the most part, though, reviewers like me mean well and genuinely want to help you improve your manuscript.

You never really know who might be Reviewer 2.