["\n\nObjectives\nThe objective of this study was to empirically test the wide belief that Reviewer #2 is a uniquely poor reviewer.\n\n\nMethods\nThe test involved analyzing the reviewer database from Political Behavior. There are two main tests. First, the reviewer's categorical evaluation of the manuscript was compared by reviewer number. Second, the data were analyzed to test if Reviewer #2 was disproportionately likely to be more than one category below the mean of the other reviewers of the manuscript.\n\n\nResults\nThere is no evidence that Reviewer #2 is either more negative about the manuscript or out of line with the other reviewers. There is, however, evidence that Reviewer #3 is more likely to be more than one category below the other reviewers.\n\n\nConclusions\nReviewer #2 is not the problem. Reviewer #3 is. In fact, he is such a bad actor that he even gets the unwitting Reviewer #2 blamed for his bad behavior.\n\n", "Social Science Quarterly, Volume 101, Issue 4, Page 1648-1652, July 2020. "]