Here is what Reviewer #1 had to say about one of my lab's papers about explanation:
The study is motivated in part by the desire to work towards greater integration of the philosophy of science with the methods of experimental psychology.
Experimental psychology extends from the hard-nosed empirical investigation of the neural basis of sense perceptions (for example) to the utterly squishy evaluation of highly artificial constructs tested through the administration of biased questionnaires to bolster prejudices of the investigators. There is no specific degree of rigour attributable to experimental psychology as a whole, and the field suffers more than most from conceptual disparity and a failure to agree on any fundamental principles whatsoever. I am unsure why the authors think it a good idea to employ methods associated with experimental psychology to a question that seems to lie in the domain of language-focussed analytical philosophy.
Reviewer #1 is no doubt convinced that the methods of analytic philosophy do not suffer from lack of rigour, that the field suffers less than most from conceptual disparity, and that it has long since come to a consensu on fundamental principles.