Are you sure the 'problem' isn't you?

It sounds like you just want the second person to be trained until they agree with you!

For various, Cohen's kappa may not be the best approach to use.

Have a look at Bland-Altman plots!

Both-
50/80 of those that answered the question selected that response
50/100 of those that took the survey selected that response

You don't know what the other 20 would have chosen (? attrition bias)- the proportion that you select was hopefully defined a priori in your protocol!

These are very broad questions, where the answer is 'it depends.'

You need to talk to your actual supervisor!

No!!!

Best solution is to email them all with poster ASAP, highlight short deadline, and say that you plan to submit unless anyone objects.

You can't just claim 'prejudice' because you don't like the result- what evidence do you have?

Includes all citations thrown up by search.

have a look at the PRISMA statement for full details.

Honest and upfront with where you are.

Provide clear time frames of what will be complete and by when.

Personally, I would use the opportunity and seek feedback on whether supervisors would suggest any tweaks to approach before final analysis.

I think this is an unreasonable decision- should just reject if applying such onerous conditions.

There is an ethical issue in terms of recruiting additional people, when the research question has already been answered.

If it was me, I would either:
- Retract from the journal and submit elsewhere,
- Return with a covering letter explaining the implications of additional recruitment and add this as a limitation.

Consider:
1) Will the paper be of interest to the reader?
2) Is it likely (after any amendment) if the paper will be publishable?

Remember:
- They cannot change the methodology- the authors can only provide clarification or acknowledge limitations.
- Your role is not to be a copywriter- if spelling and grammar need amending, make a general statement about recommending proof-reading. Don't cite every example.

Make your response structured!

If someone doesn't understand your work, it reflects a failure on your part to explain it!




Who chose examiners?




Two people v you!




You haven't because you haven't passed viva, which is an essential part of the assessment process.




How has the university been negligent or breached its contract? There is an element of subjectivity to the academic process- you happen to disagree with two experts!

I read my thesis the weekend before- didn't take much in as found it very dull!!!

Had another glance through on the morning!

What does the study protocol/ analysis plan say you should do?

Agree with first step above.

Key question is what terms and conditions did you agree to when submitting! Who now owns the copyright?

1) ask others in your field
2) Google or journal website. No idea what Q1/Q2 etc is.
3) Look on scopus.