First, I think it is good to acknowledge reviewers as you consider doing. It is the editor who rejects any papers based on the results of reviews so the reviews may still be very constructive and indeed helpful in improving a paper. So I would suggest something like the following > We/I (gratefully) acknowledge the (crtitical) review by X on an earlier > version of the manuscript. There are many ways to express it and what words you wish to use is up to you and the way you wish to express your gratitde. I would not add the name of the journal(s) where the reviews were conducted (other than in the letter to the journal editopr accompanying your MS submission). I also would like to take the opportunity to add that the following issue, not that it applies to your case but more to point out some bad practises for the community. The poor behaviour concerns when someone acknowledges a famous persons review just to gain leverage in resubmitting it to another journal. I have seen how persons have used reviews stating that the paper should be rejected because it is "crap" as a "most valuable input to help improve th emanuscript". Since no-one typicaly knows what this review did, the gut reaction is to think it must have been valuable since the reviewer is well known. For this reason it is good to provide the review/revisions from the old MS when re-submitting it so that the review-revision work becomes obvious to the editor. As a final point, I would not add the acknowledgement of any reviewers new or old until the time when your MS has been (hopefully) accepted in the new journal. EDIT: Based on the good comments by Tara B on anonymous reviewers and how to distinguish reviews from old and new MS I would write something as the following > We/I (gratefully) acknowledge the (crtitical) reviews by two anonymous reviewers as well as the (critical) review by another anonymous reviewer on an earlier > version of the manuscript. Words in parenthesis are optonal and can be exchanged for others that better suit your needs.