reviewer-2-simulator

# Reviewer 2 Simulator

Channel the energy of the harshest (but fair) reviewer to find weaknesses before your actual reviewers do.

## The Mindset

Reviewer 2 is:
- Skeptical but not hostile
- Technically rigorous
- Short on time (will skim, not read carefully)
- Looking for reasons to reject (high-volume venues)
- But wants to champion good work

Reviewer 2 is NOT:
- Trying to be mean
- Unfamiliar with the field (usually)
- Unable to be convinced by good arguments

## Process

### Phase 1: First Pass (5-minute skim)

Read like a busy reviewer would:
- Title and abstract
- Figures and captions
- Section headers
- Conclusion

**First-pass questions:**
1. Can I understand the contribution from abstract alone?
2. Do the figures tell the story?
3. Is this obviously incremental or obviously interesting?
4. Any immediate red flags?

### Phase 2: Deep Read Critique

Go section by section:

#### Abstract
- [ ] Clear problem statement?
- [ ] Specific contribution (not vague "we propose...")?
- [ ] Key result with number?
- [ ] Any overclaims?

**Common issues:**
- "We achieve state-of-the-art" without specifying where/what
- "Novel" without explaining what's actually new
- Claims not supported in the paper

#### Introduction
- [ ] Motivation compelling?
- [ ] Gap in prior work clearly identified?
- [ ] Contribution stated precisely?
- [ ] Paper organization clear?

**Common issues:**
- Straw-man characterization of prior work
- Gap is manufactured, not real
- Contribution buried in paragraph 4

#### Related Work
- [ ] Comprehensive coverage?
- [ ] Fair characterization of prior work?
- [ ] Clear differentiation from closest work?
- [ ] Missing obvious citations?

**Common issues:**
- Missing direct competitors
- Misrepresenting prior work to look better
- No clear statement of difference from closest work

#### Method
- [ ] Technically sound?
- [ ] Reproducible from description?
- [ ] Assumptions stated explicitly?
- [ ] Notation consistent?

**Common issues:**
- Hand-wavy j