Skill UI

This guide details the rigorous, multi-stage academic review process for submissions to top-tier conferences like SODA (Symposium on Discrete Algorithms). It covers the entire lifecycle, from initial submission and abstract assignment to deep technical refereeing, author rebuttal phases, and final PC decision-making. It provides actionable advice on writing style, addressing reviewer comments, and improving borderline papers.

A comprehensive guide for writing the evaluation section of a systems paper for top-tier conferences. It teaches authors how to map every technical claim to verifiable experiments, establish fair state-of-the-art baselines, utilize mixed workloads (microbenchmarks, E2E applications, and traces), and honestly report critical metrics like performance tails, variance, and overheads. The goal is to maximize credibility and withstand rigorous peer review.

This guide provides expert advice on structuring and writing the 'Related Work' section for top-tier systems conferences (like SOSP/OSDI). It emphasizes shifting from simple citation lists to structural positioning, requiring authors to identify precise differences (e.g., assumption, mechanism, guarantee) between their work and existing research. It also covers academic lineage tracing, double-blind citation rules, and handling concurrent work.

This resource models the complex, multi-stage review process for top-tier academic conferences, such as SOSP. It details the journey of a paper from initial submission through staged reviews, author rebuttal, and the final live committee decision. It helps users understand the structural dynamics of scholarly evaluation and how to strategically respond to reviewers' critiques.

This guide provides best practices for authors submitting to top-tier technical conferences. It clarifies the critical distinction between core, review-essential arguments (which must stand alone in the main paper) and supporting evidence (such as formal proofs, extra data analyses, or methodological details) suitable for an optional supplementary document. It also covers anonymity best practices and distinguishing between different submission types.

This guide teaches authors how to position their research manuscript for top-tier journals like Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ). It emphasizes framing the work within specific sociological theoretical programs (e.g., symbolic interaction, structure–individual link) rather than general psychological findings, ensuring the contribution speaks directly to the field's ongoing academic debates.

A comprehensive checklist detailing the final pre-submission steps for Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) via SageTrack/ScholarOne Manuscript Central. It guides authors through masking, ASA style compliance, abstract formatting, and fee verification to ensure the manuscript meets all journal requirements and avoids temporary rejection.

A comprehensive, end-to-end audit checklist designed for authors submitting manuscripts to high-level academic journals like SSI. It covers critical areas including LaTeX formatting, selecting the appropriate article type, writing standalone bilingual abstracts, adhering to strict international citation standards (e.g., GB/T 7714), and complying with academic ethics policies (e.g., one-submission rule). Use this guide as the final quality assurance step before submission.

A detailed guide for authors submitting theoretical computer science papers, outlining the required evidence objects (proofs, certificates, code) and best practices for preparing the public, full version of the work. It emphasizes structuring arguments to meet the standards of top-tier academic conferences like STOC.

A comprehensive guide for theoretical computer science authors on converting an accepted paper into two distinct, public deliverables: a concise, citable proceedings version (extended abstract) and a comprehensive, full version for public preprint servers like arXiv. Details the formatting, copyright requirements, version control, and post-publication hygiene necessary for academic publishing.

This guide outlines the rigorous process for submitting and evaluating research artifacts for academic conferences (TACAS/ETAPS). It details the mandatory two-round evaluation system, covering tool-demonstration papers and general research case studies. Authors must package their work to achieve badges like Available, Functional, and Reusable, ensuring maximum reproducibility and environmental compatibility on a clean virtual machine.

This guide provides detailed guidelines for authors submitting to top-tier formal methods conferences (like TACAS). It emphasizes moving beyond simple literature summaries by employing a "delta-first" approach. Authors must precisely position their algorithm or tool by contrasting its novel features, guarantees, or scaling benefits against the nearest prior work, while also crediting underlying infrastructure and covering major verification venues.