,
8 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
I have no doubt missed many examples of how the dreaded #Reviewer2 would have responded to some of the great works of the past but these are the result of an idling mind on a Friday afternoon.
I would recommend that Mr Plato takes out the section on caves. Hard to see what this adds to his argument. While considerations of outreach and impact are to be encouraged his suggestions on an academic role in political leadership may invite controversy. #Reviewer2
Mr Machiavelli offers a model of how dictators stay in power but his sample size is far too small and he unaccountably fails to deal with the Democratic Peace literature. I attach some references. #Reviewer2
Mr Hobbes explores issues of governance but his model depends on a state of nature for which he provides little evidence. The book would be stronger if he explored other such states. Is this particular one normal or an outlier? #Reviewer2
Unfortunately Mr Clausewitz’s work is unfinished. He relies substantially on participant observation. When he resubmits it would be helpful if he could further contextualise his field work. Also there is no statement confirming that he obtained ethical approval. #Reviewer2
While Mr Marx’s commitment to the scientific method is welcome I am not sure he fully understands what that entails. As his argument is also tendentious perhaps the role of the Engels Foundation in its funding might be addressed. #Reviewer2
I’m afraid you will need to find another reviewer for Mr Hegel. #Reviewer2
Can I suggest that Mr Durkheim is offered counselling? #Reviewer2
