Find peer reviewers with the exact expertise your manuscript needs.
Describe the methodological background. Get researchers who actually work in that space, not just the same names your editorial board already knows.
3 free searches — discover 60-150 matching professionals, no signup required
Then $1 per search
Not sure where to start? Try these.
Your top three reviewer picks declined. The fourth hasn't responded in two weeks. ScholarOne's suggestion list is the same twelve people every editor in your sub-discipline is also inviting. The reviewer fatigue problem isn't going away because the tools keep recycling the same pool.
The journals with the fastest turnaround and highest review quality share a structural advantage: they cast wider nets. They find early-career researchers who have the right methodological expertise but haven't built the publication volume that platforms use as a proxy for capability. They recruit from adjacent sub-disciplines where the methods transfer perfectly. They reach institutions that reviewer databases systematically underrepresent.
Describe the exact methodological background and domain knowledge a manuscript needs. CloneICP finds 20-50 researchers whose work matches that description, including early-career scientists and those in adjacent fields. Broaden your reviewer pool beyond citation-network effects.
Wider pool. Less fatigue. Faster turnaround.
What You Get
What You'll Get
Every search returns clear output in under 60 seconds.
20-50 Subject-Matter Experts
Researchers whose published work and methodological expertise align with what your manuscript requires for rigorous review.
Match Scores
Each reviewer candidate ranked by how closely their research focus matches the manuscript's domain and methods.
Why They Match
See specific signals: research focus, methodological expertise, institutional affiliation, career stage.
CSV Export
Download your candidate list. Cross-reference with your conflict-of-interest records before inviting.
How It Works
Describe Your Target
Tell us who you're looking for in plain language.
AI Finds Matches
We analyze signals and find matching professionals.
Export Results
Up to 50 matches, ready for your enrichment tool.
How This Is Different
You know the problem. Here's what changes.
- Searches publication metadata, returning the same overburdened senior reviewers
- Keyword-based matching misses researchers who use different terminology
- Early-career researchers with the right expertise rarely appear in results
- Reviewer fatigue worsens as the same people get invited across journals
- Describe the expertise needed in research language, not database keywords
- Surface qualified researchers at all career stages, not just senior faculty
- Find reviewers in adjacent sub-disciplines with transferable expertise
- Broaden your reviewer pool beyond citation-network effects
Questions