Unethical Peer Review.

This paper calls for greater ethical standards in the peer review process. Critical analysis through the lens of the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers is performed on two reviews received on different versions of a paper from two different journals. Both are relentlessly negative. Neither is executed ethically. No justifiable significant criticism is evident. Both appear influenced by confirmation bias. One is characterized by apparent misreading of both the paper and the reviewer's sources, plus failure to check criticism was valid. The rhetorical style of the other diminishes clarity, introduces ambiguity, and bewilders. It conveys overwhelming negativity with no supporting substance. This paper is the first to contribute to this theme in both the accounting and the accounting history literature. It is hoped it will encourage reviewers to be ethical, that it results in unethical reviews being more readily detected, and authors being better equipped to address reviewer comments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]