Skill UI

A comprehensive guide detailing the unique commissioning process for submitting to Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych). It clarifies the difference between unsolicited submissions and invited roles, providing playbooks for both suggesting a new topic/author lineup and managing the scope and contributions once an invitation is secured. Essential reading for researchers aiming to publish in a commissioned volume.

A comprehensive audit guide for submitting research papers to IEEE/ACM ASE conferences. It covers strict formatting rules (acmart template, page budget), mandatory Data Availability Statements, double-anonymous review compliance, and critical submission pitfalls like identity leaks and template errors. Use this checklist before uploading to HotCRP to maximize acceptance chances.

This guide outlines the critical rules for structuring technical research papers submitted to top-tier conferences like ASE. It emphasizes the 'decision-criticality' rule, instructing authors on how to separate core arguments (which must fit within the 10-page body) from reproduction details, raw logs, and supplementary material (the artifact). Mastering this separation is crucial for ensuring reviewers judge the paper on its merits, not its supplementary data.

A comprehensive guide for authors preparing an artifact appendix (ae.tex) for major conferences like ASPLOS. Learn how to structure your submission to achieve Available, Functional, and Reproducible badges. Covers managing complex dependencies (hardware, software, data), structuring the repository for evaluators, and optimizing collaboration protocols to ensure successful post-acceptance validation.

A comprehensive audit guide for the final pre-upload stage of major academic conference submissions (e.g., ASPLOS). This tool ensures compliance across critical areas, including strict 11-page limits, mandatory LaTeX templates, correct full-name citation formatting, hyperlinked DOIs, double-blind anonymity, and accurate HotCRP form completion.

This guide assists in building robust, mechanism-driven theories for academic manuscripts, particularly in organizational science. It teaches the critical distinction between process theories (explaining how and why things unfold) and variance theories (explaining how much things vary). It emphasizes defining generative mechanisms, specifying boundary conditions, and structuring arguments for both inductive and deductive research designs, ensuring the theory is the core contribution.

This guide provides a comprehensive strategy for writing a response letter following an American Sociological Review (ASR) revise-and-resubmit (R&R). It addresses handling conflicting reviewer feedback, structuring the response to satisfy both reviewers and the editor, and protecting the core contribution of the paper through robust argumentation and evidence.

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.

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 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 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.

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.