In a recent article for The Chronicle of Higher Education, SUNY Press senior acquisitions editor Rebecca Colesworthy argues that “Reader 2”–the notorious label for harsh peer reviewers in academia–is often misunderstood. Colesworthy explains that “Reader 2” is often defined by authors as someone who provides overly critical, insulting, or even dismissive feedback on a manuscript. However, Colesworthy underlines that this stereotype is often based more in myth, as most reviewers offer constructive advice that supports scholarly improvement. Colesworthy concludes by emphasizing that establishing trust among authors, reviewers, and editors is essential to navigating peer review processes successfully and encouraging authors to view critical feedback as valuable insight that can strengthen their work.
