Public reviews, scored for usefulness.
Methodology

A second opinion on peer review. Find the feedback worth answering, the comments worth questioning, and the occasional Reviewer 2 who understood the assignment.

All scored public reviews / 2025

Venue review-quality risk

Higher risk means more vague, unsupported, or needlessly hostile review comments across the venue. Choose a venue to open its ranked reviews.

Browsing is open. Sign in only when you want to save, follow, or comment.

Reviews that need a clearer point.

Machine judgment, not a verdict. Scores are AI-generated and may be inaccurate. They evaluate the published text of a review, not the reviewer as a person.

73review usefulness
Solid review

Select a paper

3 reviewers6 comments

Themes

Comments

Read the source before raising the pitchfork. Scores are AI-generated, may be inaccurate, and assess review text rather than reviewer identity or character.

async function loadRateContext(row) { if (!row?.paperId || !row?.reviewerKey || !API_BASE) return; try { const response = await apiFetch(`/api/papers/${encodeURIComponent(row.paperId)}/scorecard`); if (!response.ok) throw new Error(`HTTP ${response.status}`); const scorecard = await response.json(); const reviewer = (scorecard.reviewers || []).find(item => item.reviewer_key === row.reviewerKey); rateContext.detail = reviewer ? { paper: scorecard.paper || {}, reviewer } : null; renderRateModal(); } catch (error) { console.warn('Rating context load failed.', error); } }