Editors can spot a thin review in seconds: no specifics, no suggestions, nowhere to act. This free tool turns that impression into counts and a heuristic score, so thin reviews are easy to flag.
What the tool does
Editors read hundreds of reviews, and the difference between a useful one and a thin one is usually visible in seconds: specific points, concrete suggestions, and references to exact places in the manuscript. This tool turns that impression into numbers. It counts words, actionable verbs such as consider, clarify, and revise, questions asked, and specific references such as section 3 or figure 2, then combines them into a heuristic score out of 100. The score is a guide for spotting thin reviews, not a grade for the reviewer.
How to use it
Paste one review comment at a time and press the button. Read the four counts before the score, because they explain it. A comment with many words but no actionable verbs is usually summary without guidance. A comment with many questions but no references may be curious but hard to act on. Use the tool when triaging reviews for an editorial decision, or when training new reviewers by showing them what a concrete comment looks like.
Worked example
Take the comment: The sample size in section 3 is unclear. Could the authors clarify the power analysis and consider adding a sensitivity test in table 2? It has about twenty words, two actionable verbs, one question, and two specific references, and scores in the mid range. Compare it with: The paper needs work. That has four words, no verbs, no questions, and no references, and scores near zero. Both comments took seconds to write. Only the first helps an author revise.
Reading the results honestly
Do not rank reviewers by this score. A short, decisive comment from an expert, such as the central claim contradicts figure 4, can be worth more than a long list of minor points, and this tool will score it low. Field norms matter too: some reviews are short by tradition. Use the score to flag comments that may need a follow-up question to the reviewer, and always read the comment itself before judging it.
Honest limits
This tool counts words from fixed lists and simple patterns. It does not understand whether a suggestion is correct, whether a question is fair, or whether the review is kind. Its verb list is English only, so reviews in other languages will under-score. It also rewards length up to a point, which means a padded review can outscore a sharp one. Treat the output as a screening aid, and keep editorial judgement where it belongs: with the editor.
Practical tips for editors and mentors
Use the counts in feedback to new reviewers, not as a punishment: show a trainee the difference between a comment with two specific references and one with none, and the lesson lands faster than any lecture on reviewing. When a review scores very low, reply to the reviewer with one focused question, such as asking for the section the concern refers to, rather than rejecting the review outright; most reviewers will expand a thin comment when asked. Track patterns, not single scores: a reviewer who repeatedly submits thin comments may be overloaded, while a usually strong reviewer with one thin comment may simply have been rushed. Share the tool with reviewers before they write, so they know what a useful comment looks like in advance. Over time, that shared standard raises the quality of every review your journal receives, which is a better outcome than any single score.
Related tools
Spanish version: Motor de Métricas de Calidad de Revisión Gratis y Online · All free online tools.
Embed this tool on your website — free
Copy the code below to add this working tool to your own page. A small credit link stays with it — that’s all we ask.