When you write about something that is a bit niche, and then a general journal is good enough to not desk reject the thing right away, it can take them a long time to find reviewers. And when they finally do, at least one of them might be a bit niche, too.
More specifically, reviewer #3 might be someone playing that classic rev#2 gambit of strongly suggesting to include some references that they may have co-authored. Said references may even look familiar, because you have seen them before.
You may have seen them before because you did some due diligence and decided that in a short research note, there was no need and (no space) to discuss the outputs of a research group in a neighbouring discipline, as said outputs were all published in seriously obscure, semi-predatory journals and do not engage with the literature in political science.
And yet, reviewer #3, who may
or may not be one of the authors, is convinced that this stuff (and the way they set up their analyses) is so! much! better! And I will have to read this stuff again, and I shall be polite and diplomatic. It is a well deserved karmic punishment for my initial arrogance, I suppose. Fine.
Reviewer #3 also asks for additional information on the constructs. No problem for me, as the exact thing they are asking for is already in the original manuscript (hey, why bother reading the footnotes).
The cherry on the cake? “It is not clear why self-derision was used”. Why indeed? Took me a second to realise that rev #3 is referring to the (Schwartz) value that is commonly known as self-direction.