$6 one-time · results in minutes
Response to Reviewers
This tool red-teams your reply letter (an adversarial read that looks for weak points) before you send it. A three-persona AI panel (Skeptical Reviewer, Tone Editor and Editor-in-Chief) reads your reviewer comments, your draft response and the revised manuscript. The output has four parts: per-comment verdicts, tone concerns, missing responses and a final accept-or-revise estimate.
- Pay through Stripe
- Upload the revised PDF and paste the reviewer comments and your draft letter; the link is also emailed
- Read the result on the page, or ask to be emailed when it is ready
Deleted soon after delivery. The report is deleted from our servers 30 minutes after you first open it, or after 24 hours if you never do. If it reads as low-quality, we refund the $6.
Sample report
What does the report look like? View sample
Response to Reviewers review
Per-comment tracker
| # | Reviewer comment | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| R1.2 | "Sample size seems small for the claimed effect." | Addressed. Power analysis added to Section 3.2. |
| R1.4 | "Figure 3 axis labels are unreadable." | Partially addressed. Labels enlarged, but the legend still overlaps the plot. |
| R2.1 | "The related-work section ignores prior work by Chen et al." | Hand-waved. Response says "we are aware of this work" without adding a citation or comparison. |
| R2.3 | "Why not compare against baseline X?" | Rejected with argument. Response explains X is not applicable to this setting. The reasoning is sound. |
Tone concerns
- Response to R2.1 reads as dismissive: "As any reader familiar with the field would understand, this comparison is unnecessary." Suggest: "We agree this comparison is worth addressing directly. [reasoning]"
Missing responses
- R1.5 ("Please clarify the exclusion criteria for Experiment 2") has no corresponding response letter entry.
Action checklist
- [A] Add a citation and one-sentence comparison to Chen et al. for R2.1.
- [A] Write a response to the missing R1.5 comment.
- [B] Fix the overlapping legend in Figure 3.
What the report includes
- Per-comment tracker. Every reviewer comment, paired with your response, marked as addressed, partially addressed, hand-waved, rejected with argument, or not evaluable.
- Tone concerns. This section flags defensive, dismissive or argumentative phrasing the reviewer will notice. It suggests rewrites that say the same thing less abrasively.
- Missing responses. Reviewer comments you did not address at all. One is easy to miss.
- Action checklist. An A/B/C-prioritized list of what to fix in the response letter or manuscript before hitting submit.
FAQ
What format should the reviewer comments be in?
Paste them as plain text. Common patterns are auto-detected: "Reviewer 1:" headers, "(1)" or "1." numbered comments. If your editor sent them as a PDF, copy the text out.
And the response letter?
Same: paste the draft text. We do not accept a PDF for the response.
Does the manuscript have to be the revised version?
Yes. We check whether the response's claimed fixes are actually present in the revision.
What does Purplelink retain?
Only briefly. The report is deleted from our servers 30 minutes after you first open it, or after 24 hours if you never do. Your reviewer comments, response letter, and manuscript are sent to Anthropic's Claude API, which retains inputs for 30 days for abuse monitoring, never for training.