Share the Reviewer Comments You Received (Anonymously)

Free · anonymous · for researchers worldwide

Share the reviewer comments you received, anonymously

Peer review happens behind closed doors, so every researcher starts guessing what a journal’s reviewers and editors expect. Your comments can change that. Paste the reviewer comments or editor decision from any submission, accepted, revised or rejected, and help the next researcher prepare better.

663comments & decisions
387journals covered
11research areas

Live counts, updated 16 October 2026

(a) Decision letter received(b) Anonymised before storage(c) Reasons tagged from the words(d) Published on the journal page Decision on your manuscript Dear Dr. Sharma, Manuscript ID CAEE-D-24-01234 Best regards, Prof. Rao Reviewer 1: the comparison with recentstate-of-the-art methods is missing.Reviewer 2: please justify theparameter choices in the simulation.Decision: reject after review. Decision on your manuscript greeting removedManuscript[ID]signature removed Reviewer 1: the comparison with recentstate-of-the-art methods is missing.Reviewer 2: please justify theparameter choices in the simulation.Decision:Rejected after review Reviewer 1: the comparison with recentstate-of-the-art methods is missing. Comparison with recent work Reviewer 2:pleasejustifytheparameterchoices in the simulation. Methodology and technical qualityExperiments and parameters scholarscolab.com/journals/… Decisions shared Desk rejected 9 Rejected after review Revision requested 4 Accepted 2 67 Rejected after reviewshared anonymouslyReviewer 1: the comparison with recentstate-of-the-art methods is missing.Comparison with recent work anonymisetag reasonspublish alert tosubscribers

Recently shared by researchers

Outcome not statedAnalog Integrated Circuits and Signal Processing

“Unrealistic simulation results without experimental validation and inconsistencies with established P3HT device physics. Lack of clarity (simulation v…”

Outcome not statedEnergy Sources Part A: Recovery, Utilization, an

“Due to high submissions and strict selectivity, your paper did not fit their scope or priority.”

RejectedSemiconductor Science and Technology

“Rejection on 28th June: Thank you for your submission to Semiconductor Science and Technology. We have read your manuscript and decided that it does n…”

RejectedInternational Journal of Materials Research

“I do thank you for your submission to IJMR which I have now intensively checked myself. Actually while well written, I noticed that you present a pure…”

Desk rejectedKOVOVE MATERIALY-METALLIC MATERIALS

“your manuscript has been rejected by the Editorial Office of Kovove Materialy-Metallic Materials. Design and Analysis of Two-Dimensional Perovskites B…”

RejectedIntegration

“Editor comments (if applicable):    While your results are of potential interest, the topic of your manuscript falls outside of the scope of this jour…”

RejectedSustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems

“While your results are of potential interest, the topic of your manuscript falls outside of the scope of this journal. For an overview of the Aims & S…”

RejectedCentral European Journal of Operations Research

“After consulting members of the editorial board, we reached the conclusion that the content of your paper will be outside the main focus of interest f…”

Rejectedoptimal control application and method

“Reject on 21 June 2025 I am therefore afraid that this paper has not been found suitable for publication in the Wiley Journal of Optimal Control, Appl…”

RejectedInternational Journal of Information Technology

“Based on the initial reviews from two members of the ITDM Advisory Board, your paper has not much contribution to the domain of the ITDM knowledge. Th…”

RejectedArabian Journal for Science and Engineering

“Rejection on 27 Apr 25: We want to express our appreciation for your manuscript submission to the Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. After c…”

Outcome not statedJournal of Electromagnetic Waves and Application

“analytical/theoretical justification, insufficient novelty, and no experimental validation,”

Outcome not statedAnalog Integrated Circuits and Signal Processing

“Unrealistic simulation results without experimental validation and inconsistencies with established P3HT device physics. Lack of clarity (simulation v…”

Outcome not statedEnergy Sources Part A: Recovery, Utilization, an

“Due to high submissions and strict selectivity, your paper did not fit their scope or priority.”

RejectedSemiconductor Science and Technology

“Rejection on 28th June: Thank you for your submission to Semiconductor Science and Technology. We have read your manuscript and decided that it does n…”

RejectedInternational Journal of Materials Research

“I do thank you for your submission to IJMR which I have now intensively checked myself. Actually while well written, I noticed that you present a pure…”

Desk rejectedKOVOVE MATERIALY-METALLIC MATERIALS

“your manuscript has been rejected by the Editorial Office of Kovove Materialy-Metallic Materials. Design and Analysis of Two-Dimensional Perovskites B…”

RejectedIntegration

“Editor comments (if applicable):    While your results are of potential interest, the topic of your manuscript falls outside of the scope of this jour…”

RejectedSustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems

“While your results are of potential interest, the topic of your manuscript falls outside of the scope of this journal. For an overview of the Aims & S…”

RejectedCentral European Journal of Operations Research

“After consulting members of the editorial board, we reached the conclusion that the content of your paper will be outside the main focus of interest f…”

Rejectedoptimal control application and method

“Reject on 21 June 2025 I am therefore afraid that this paper has not been found suitable for publication in the Wiley Journal of Optimal Control, Appl…”

RejectedInternational Journal of Information Technology

“Based on the initial reviews from two members of the ITDM Advisory Board, your paper has not much contribution to the domain of the ITDM knowledge. Th…”

RejectedArabian Journal for Science and Engineering

“Rejection on 27 Apr 25: We want to express our appreciation for your manuscript submission to the Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. After c…”

Outcome not statedJournal of Electromagnetic Waves and Application

“analytical/theoretical justification, insufficient novelty, and no experimental validation,”

Takes about a minute

Share your reviewer comments

Pick the journal, choose the outcome, and paste the comments. Do not include your name or your paper's title; we also remove names, titles, emails and links automatically before anything is published.

From submission to the first decision (desk rejection, reviews or acceptance). Helps others plan.
Plain text only, up to 12,000 characters. Names, titles, emails, links and IDs are removed automatically.

Your privacy comes first

Nothing that identifies you, your co-authors, your manuscript or the reviewers is published. Here is what the automatic anonymiser does with a real example:

What you paste

Dear Dr. Sharma, Manuscript ID CAEE-D-24-01234 entitled “Stable clustering for 5G VANET” has been reviewed. Reviewer 1: The comparison with recent state-of-the-art methods is missing. Contact: sharma@uni.edu. Best regards, Prof. Rao

What is published

Manuscript [ID] entitled [manuscript title] has been reviewed. Reviewer 1: The comparison with recent state-of-the-art methods is missing.

Names removedTitles removedEmails & links removedManuscript IDs removedSignatures removedChecked before publishing

How it works, and where your comments are published

  1. Pick the journalStart typing its name and choose it from the list.
  2. Paste the commentsReviewer comments or the editor’s decision, the outcome and, if you like, weeks to the first decision.
  3. We anonymise and checkNames, titles, IDs and contact details are removed; you see the exact text straight away and get a private status link.
  4. Published in three placesThe journal’s page, under “Reviewer comments and rejection reasons”
    Research-topic pages for the area you entered
    Open statistics on why papers get rejected

Frequently asked questions

Is sharing my reviewer comments really anonymous?

Yes. You do not create an account and we do not publish who shared. Before anything is stored, names, manuscript titles, emails, links, phone numbers, manuscript IDs, greetings and signatures are removed automatically, and each submission is checked before it is published. Only the journal name, the outcome and the comments themselves appear.

Am I allowed to share reviewer comments publicly?

Many journals ask authors to keep the peer-review process confidential, and policies differ. Sharing short, anonymised comments that do not identify the manuscript, the authors or the reviewers is how most researchers discuss review experiences, but if your journal’s policy forbids it, please do not share. You can also share only the editor’s decision and the reasons given.

What happens after I submit?

You immediately see exactly what will be published and the pages where it will appear, plus a private link to check the status. After a quick check, usually within a day or two, the comments appear on the journal’s page on ScholarsColab and in the overall statistics.

Can I share comments from an accepted paper or a revision?

Yes, please do. Comments from accepted papers and revision requests are just as useful: they show what reviewers at that journal value. Choose the outcome in the form so readers can see it.

Do I need to register or give my email?

No. Sharing needs no account and no email address. If you want alerts when others share feedback for a journal, you can subscribe separately on that journal’s page.

Why is there no file upload?

To keep sharing fast and private: a pasted text can be anonymised reliably, while uploaded documents often contain hidden names, comments and metadata. Copy the reviewer comments from the email or the submission system and paste them into the box.

Can I remove something I shared?

Yes. Email support@scholarscolab.com with your private tracking link (shown after you submit) and we will remove it.

How are the shared comments used?

They appear on the journal’s page under “Reviewer comments and rejection reasons”, on related research-topic pages, and in anonymous statistics such as the most common reasons for rejection. They are never sold.