I have done it again. I have received totally inconsistent paper reviews. This variance is really too much. The first two rows are my favorite. If you're curious, R1 is the most accurate (since I know the paper, I can say that with expertise).
| Criteria (#/10) | R1 | R2 | R3 |
| Quality of writing/probable presentation | 9 | 4 | 4 |
| Quality of the contribution to knowledge base | 8 | 2 | 7 |
| Integration of relevant theory/research/scholarship | 7 | 4 | 5 |
| Strength in applying the relevant method or research approach | 7 | 6 | 7 |
| Importance of the topic | 7 | 7 | 7 |
| Overall rating | 8 | 5 | 6 |
Comments range from "An interesting topic, and very good paper" to "Writing is often awkward; this reads like a first draft" (it was a third draft, thank you, idiot, you could be costing me my academic career with your careless reviewing!).
