Skill UI

This guide helps researchers determine if their applied microeconomics topic aligns with the deliberately narrow scope of a top Industrial Organization (IO) journal. It provides a structured framework to sharpen vague ideas into focused, mechanism-driven, and policy-relevant questions concerning antitrust, regulation, market structure, and firm strategy.

A comprehensive guide for packaging robotic research artifacts (code, policies, ledgers, hardware specs) for peer review and public release. It details the necessary steps to ensure maximum reproducibility, auditability, and permanence, covering both anonymous review-time evidence and citable public repositories.

This skill guides authors through the complex process of selecting the optimal academic journal venue for their research. It profiles the paper's characteristics (discipline, method, contribution) and shortlists potential targets from a large index. It scores candidates based on fit, acceptance odds, turnaround time, and audience, providing a tiered recommendation (Reach, Match, Safe) and a detailed resubmission ladder. Ideal for rejected drafts or papers needing a first target.

A critical pre-submission tool that provides a comprehensive go/no-go scorecard for academic manuscripts. It evaluates nine dimensions—including fit, robustness, and venue mechanics—to catch avoidable desk-reject risks before the author submits the paper. It scores the manuscript against the target venue's specific requirements and provides actionable feedback on gaps and necessary revisions.

A comprehensive guide for authors to determine if their manuscript meets the stringent standards of Science Translational Medicine. This skill assesses the necessary dual mandate: demonstrating both a solid mechanistic insight and a credible, measurable clinical translation arc (drug, device, or biomarker). It covers scope fit, required human evidence standards, necessary preclinical validation, and specific structural requirements for submission.

This specialized tool analyzes Git diffs against a stated development intent to detect scope creep. It identifies overly broad pull requests, unrelated files, dependency additions, public API renames, or configuration changes. It guides users on whether changes should be kept, split into separate commits, or if the connection requires explicit justification, ensuring clean and focused code merges.

A comprehensive guide detailing the required structure and technical rigor for writing papers in sensing and embedded systems (SenSys). It mandates replacing vague adjectives with concrete, measured metrics (e.g., energy in joules, latency in milliseconds) and structuring the argument around a clear 'pain $\to$ gap $\to$ mechanism $\to$ measured behavior' arc on the first page. Essential for academic researchers and engineers.

A comprehensive guide on methodological rigor for submitting manuscripts to Social Forces. It covers designing causal inference (panel/DID/IV/RDD), demographic analysis, comparative-historical case selection, and network/computational methods. The focus is on strengthening the design by rigorously defending assumptions and ruling out alternative explanations, ensuring methodological soundness beyond mere association.

This guide details the expected review standards and process for submitting academic manuscripts to general social-science journals, referencing the Social Forces review model. It covers double-anonymization rules, required methodological rigor, achieving general significance, structuring theoretical arguments, and anticipating typical reviewer critiques. Use this before submission to stress-test your work and shape it for a higher chance of acceptance.

This skill provides comprehensive guidance for authors submitting highly rigorous theoretical computer science manuscripts to top-tier venues like SIAM Journal on Computing (SICOMP). It covers required standards for algorithmic design, computational complexity, formal proofs, house style, and the high bar for theoretical contribution necessary for foundational academic publishing.

This comprehensive guide outlines the structured process for authors responding to peer review feedback for top-tier academic conferences (e.g., SIGCOMM). It critically distinguishes between drafting a concise, decision-focused rebuttal and executing a formal, contract-bound one-shot revision. It provides strict guidelines on building the required submission packet, including point-by-point responses, change-marked manuscripts, and evidence anchoring, ensuring submissions meet high academic standards.

Provides comprehensive guidelines for improving the reproducibility of academic network measurements and research artifacts, particularly for conferences like SIGCOMM. It details the necessary evidence map and the 'four ledgers'—topology, traffic, configuration, and run—to ensure that all reported claims can be accurately recreated and verified by the wider academic community.