Without any contribution from my supervisor, is it reasonable to write my papers all by myself?
@Lighthouse keeper made a very good point about finding a co-advisor. I strongly agree with the comment of @astronat, since the research doesn't always happen (doesn't often happen, never happens, shouldn't happen) in the closed system student-advisor. Finding a less senior but more responsive colleague to work with is a perfectly normal way to go, even at the end of the PhD.
Of course you can start with a frank discussion with your supervisor that you need more supervision/feedback/structure in your relationship. I've seen that work - PhD advisors often develop a mental image of a person that needs to be corrected: &quot;this person will benefit from a liberty of doing whatever they like&quot; is sometimes a great assessment, but sometimes it is a complete misreading on the advisor's part. Do note however that in such a discussion the advisor may become defensive, and even if he agrees there's no guarantee that they'll actually change their behavior. Humans are complex and so are supervisors.
In short - it's good to raise the issue with the supervisor as soon as it starts to bother you, but also not to rely solely on them changing their approach, and reaching out to other people (from fellow students to the faculty of other universities that work on the subject) to discuss your research.
But this is fairly general advice. To be a bit more specific (although you don't write, if the feedback you need is about language/experiment design/methodology/useful resources/books... so the following might not really apply) about your situation right now, I would suggest presenting your work at seminars/conferences (the pandemic at least made that easy - you don't need to travel to speak at a seminar anywhere in the world). You might get a fairly decent feedback, if you mention that you are preparing the presented work for publication (at the very least you may be able to find out who else would be interested in your research = where to submit it). Ask your colleagues and supervisor if they can set you up with their acquaintances in this way.
Lastly - but this is the main point of my answer - don't overthink it. I was alarmed by you writing about shame, because the reviews were non-blinded. I cannot stress enough that this is no reason for any sort of embarrassment: depending on the field it is already a win for a PhD to a) get to the review stage, b) get some constructive remarks out of the reviewers (instead of &quot;me no like, reject&quot;). I certainly would like to see how minuscule a percent of users here can boast that their first paper was solo and accepted outright. At this stage, for the most part, the publication proces is unfathomable and one rejection (several rejections) don't say anything about the quality of your work, needles to say - even less about your quality as a researcher. The advice &quot;make revisions, submit elsewhere&quot; is spot on.
Moreover, it is highly likely that the quality of your work will increase over time, and the corollary is that it won't probably be great at the beginning of your career, and therefore that should not be a reason to doubt yourself. That the people fail to acknowledge that we all learn how to conduct research/write papers/write readable papers in acceptable style and language as we go, and are not expected to start with inhuman levels of competence - is the single most common (and heartbreaking) reason people drop out too early from research. While it would be splendid to have an advisor that teaches how to be a scientist, it is so very often not the case and it's perfectly OK to write your first papers with a &quot;how to write research articles 101&quot; book in hand (in maths we have Jerzy Trzeciak's booklet published by EMS, and I am very fond of it).
So the second piece of advice would be to consult your colleagues if your field (or any adjacent) has such a book, they often have a copy:)