Paid tool · $9
Response to Reviewers
The dreaded reply letter, red-teamed before you send it. A three-persona AI panel — Skeptical Reviewer, Tone Editor, Editor-in-Chief — reads your reviewer comments, your draft response, and the revised manuscript. The output: per-comment verdicts, tone concerns, missing responses, and a final accept-or-revise estimate.
What the report includes
- Per-comment tracker. Every reviewer comment, paired with your response, marked as addressed / partially_addressed / hand_waved / rejected_with_argument / not_evaluable.
- Tone concerns. Defensive, dismissive, or argumentative phrasing the reviewer will notice. Suggested rewrites that say the same thing less abrasively.
- Missing responses. Reviewer comments you didn't address at all (it happens — easy to miss one).
- Action checklist. A/B/C-prioritised 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 don't 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.