Skill UI

A comprehensive guide detailing the rigorous two-round, double-blind review process for submissions to the ACM SIGOPS ATC. It outlines the strategic importance of the extended abstract, the role of the shepherd, and how the process differs from other top-tier systems conferences like OSDI and SOSP. Essential reading for authors aiming to publish high-quality systems research.

A comprehensive guide for researchers to determine the optimal venue for their computer systems paper. It teaches the critical differences between broad, practical conferences (like ATC) and selective, specialized venues (like OSDI, SOSP, or NSDI). The guide helps authors assess whether their work is novel, useful, focused on deployed experience, or requires specific networking/storage expertise.

This guide teaches authors how to frame their research contribution for a high-impact, generalist journal like the British Journal of Political Science (BJPS). It emphasizes moving beyond niche literature reviews to engage with broad, live, cross-subfield, and cross-national debates. The goal is to satisfy both specialized experts and generalist editors by clearly defining the academic gap and positioning the study as a significant move in the field's debate.

This guide provides comprehensive principles for designing self-contained, accessible, and publication-ready tables and figures for the British Journal of Political Science (BJPS). It emphasizes fitting Cambridge's strict physical dimensions, adhering to word count limits, ensuring data reproducibility, and structuring exhibits for maximum clarity to a broad, expert readership.

This guide helps researchers determine if their study—particularly in clinical neurology or translational neuroscience—meets the high standards of leading journals like Brain. It provides detailed insights into required mechanistic depth, evidence types (e.g., genetics, biomarkers), appropriate reporting guidelines (STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA), and common desk-reject expectations. It is a venue-fit aid, detailing the scientific rigor needed for submission.

This skill provides a comprehensive guide for authors targeting Cancer Discovery (AACR) or similar high-impact oncology venues. It details the journal's specific fit, required evidence standards, structural expectations, and potential desk-reject risks for manuscripts in cancer biology and translational oncology. Usage is recommended when selecting a venue, framing a manuscript, or preparing for submission.

This guide helps authors strategically position their research within active academic debates, particularly in accounting. It ensures the contribution advances a live accounting conversation, clearly distinguishes the work from related finance or economics papers, and adheres to necessary disclosure rules regarding the authors' own concurrent publications. It transforms a manuscript from merely reporting findings into actively joining and advancing a scholarly dialogue.

This guide details the comprehensive review process for Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR), covering double-anonymous peer review, the roles of the Subject Editor and Editor-in-Chief (EIC), and the formal appeals process. It helps authors understand how manuscripts are evaluated, interpret decision letters (Reject, R&R, Acceptance), and prioritize revision responses based on the Subject Editor's guidance.

This guide outlines the comprehensive process for submitting and evaluating Computer Aided Verification (CAV) research artifacts. It details the criteria for earning three badges (Available, Functional, Reusable), the two-phase review structure (smoke-test and full review), and best practices for packaging scientific tools, including the use of containers, pinned benchmarks, resource limits, and proof witnesses. This ensures reproducibility and rigor in academic research.

This guide outlines best practices for designing and executing Computer Aided Verification (CAV) empirical evaluations. It emphasizes ensuring evidence matches claims by using standard, pinned benchmark sets, selecting fair baselines, respecting equal resource limits, and employing rigorous reporting methods like cactus and scatter plots to establish technical soundness and performance.

Provides detailed guidelines for authors on how to accurately position their research novelty within the complex landscape of formal verification techniques, tools, and academic literature. It emphasizes shifting from a simple citation catalog to a 'delta-first' contrast, clearly articulating technical differences, crediting specific tool and benchmark lineages, and understanding the scope of related venues (e.g., CAV, TACAS, FMCAD).

This guide provides detailed protocols for achieving high levels of reproducibility in Computer Aided Verification (CAV) research. It emphasizes the necessity of pinning benchmark sets, recording exact tool versions, documenting resource limits (time/memory), and providing checkable proof witnesses to ensure that evaluation claims can be independently validated by competitors or reviewers.