
As a fallible process since its origins, peer review continues to be a widely debated aspect of modern science. Most scientists, if not all, are familiar with the infamous “reviewer #2” (R#2), synonymous with the “bad” reviewer, notorious for excessive or nonsensical demands. The internet is filled with jokes and sketches about R#2, and most readers have likely encountered a few. While it is not always R#2, this reviewer is often blamed and, interestingly, commonly perceived as male. Even the most diligent and competent reviewers have likely been labeled as R#2 at some point.
Veja também
ESTAMOS SEGUROS? SEGURANÇA QUÍMICA EM TEMPOS DE AGROTÓXICOS E ARMAS QUÍMICAS
This editorial discusses the importance of chemical safety and security, highlighting the risks associated with…
QN – Artigo em Destaque de Novembro/2026
⚛️ QN Volume 49, Artigo em Destaque de Novembro! ⚛️.🔗 Acesse o nosso website: https://quimicanova.sbq.org.br/.📖…
Why Scientific Societies Matter – Who Speaks for Science?
This editorial highlights the essential role of scientific societies in representing researchers, advancing science education,…
JBCS – Artigo em Destaque de Novembro/2026
⚛️ JBCS Volume 37 – Featured Article – November ⚛️.🔗 Check out at our website…

