Welcome
Review Exchange Network

An exclusive network of vetted researchers in your field, designed to mimic the real journal submission process with quick turnarounds to help increase your chances of stronger publication outcomes and impact.

Joining REN and submitting papers is free. Member spots are limited.

A network designed so that 'the love you take is equal to the love you make'.

REN is an exclusive network of vetted researchers in the same fields who exchange anonymous feedback quickly. It is designed to mimic the real journal submission process, giving researchers faster, structured pre-submission feedback to improve papers and publication outcomes throughout their careers.

Traditional routes are slow and costly. Arranging seminars can take months, and the feedback may come from audiences outside the specific field. Comments are not always focused on concrete solutions, and participants may hesitate to raise stronger criticisms in a public setting with a visiting speaker. Desk rejections burn good journal opportunities, and reviewer rounds can take months more and often end in rejection, sometimes alienating reviewers who may review your work again at another journal. Informal feedback is also often limited to close professional circles. You depend on someone's goodwill, their availability, and their belief that the exchange is worth their time. Even when they do engage, there are no structured prompts to ensure that critical dimensions — contribution clarity, core weaknesses, journal fit — are systematically addressed.

Feedback on REN focuses on key issues before submission. Reviewers assess whether the contribution is correctly stated and how it can be sharpened. They offer opinions on the main weaknesses, explain why they matter, and suggest how they could realistically be addressed. Finally, they suggest journals that may be good potential outlets. Authors can also submit revised versions with responses and request the same reviewers for a new round.

The system is reciprocal: the more you contribute, the more you receive. Members who provide high-quality feedback earn higher ratings and are matched with stronger reviewers for their own papers. Members can review papers whenever they have time — there is no fixed schedule or commitment. Credits accumulate and can be used when you have a paper ready to submit.

Created by economists, REN is designed so that high-quality reviewing is the rational strategy — not just the right thing to do. To learn more, create an account; it's free and takes less than 1 minute.

Papers and reviews are stored securely and are only accessible to approved members who accept a review assignment. They are never shared outside the platform.

Reviews on REN ask for real engagement with the paper. That takes effort, but it means others will bring the same effort to yours.

Reviewer report 1
Q1: From your reading of the paper, what do you think it is trying to do and claim?
Describe what you understand the paper's main argument and contribution to be in your own words. This helps the author understand how their paper is being read before any evaluation begins.
The paper attempts to establish a causal...
Q2: Do you agree with the authors' claims about their main contribution? Is the novelty claim convincing, and why or why not?
The most useful assessments explain the specific reasoning behind the judgment. A statement that the contribution is insufficient without explaining why leaves the author with no path forward. The meta reviewer will evaluate both your assessment and the quality of your reasoning.
The question is relevant...
Q3: How would you restate the contribution more precisely? What would make it stronger and more convincing to a journal reviewer? What would make it stronger and more convincing to a journal reviewer? What would make it stronger and more convincing to a journal reviewer?
Be as specific as possible. Vague suggestions like 'sharpen the contribution' are not actionable — explain exactly what change you have in mind and why it would be more convincing.
The paper should replace...
Q4: In your opinion, what is the main weakness of the paper, and why does it undermine the paper's conclusions?
Explain what bias or gap this weakness creates and why it is large enough to affect the results. The meta reviewer will evaluate both the weakness and the quality of your reasoning. The meta reviewer will evaluate both the weakness and the quality of your reasoning.
Key identification risk...
Q5: If you were the author, how would you address this weakness?
Explain not just what you would do but why your proposed solution would fix the problem you identified.
Implement stacked event studies...
Q6: In your opinion, what is the secondary weakness of the paper, and why does it matter?
Apply the same standard as for the main weakness — identify what bias or gap it creates and why it is consequential enough to address.
Outcome construction risk...
Q7: If you were the author, how would you address this secondary weakness?
Same standard as for the main weakness solution — explain the mechanism by which your suggestion addresses the problem.
The author should decompose...
Q8: In your opinion, which journals would consider this paper for publication in its current form, and why?
Be specific about why — what aspects of the paper's current contribution and empirical design make it a fit or not a fit for the journals you name.
Given the empirical design...
Q9: If the author fully addressed your feedback, which journals would become realistic targets, and why?
Explain what specifically about addressing your feedback would make the paper a stronger fit for the journals you name.
I think that addressing these issues would...