Skill UI

A comprehensive guide for researchers submitting technical papers to conferences like ICASSP. It teaches how to manage extensive supplementary materials—including derivations, extra results, and multimedia—while ensuring the core 4-page paper remains self-contained and review-ready under single-blind review constraints. Focus on core claims, not volume.

This guide outlines the specific expectations for preparing the 'artifact' when submitting papers to the International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT). It clarifies that ICDT is a pure theory venue, meaning the primary deliverable is not runnable code or system badges, but the complete, verifiable proof. Key components include the marked appendix (for review) and the consistent, archived full version on arXiv.

A comprehensive guide for authors on drafting strategic responses to conference reviews (e.g., ICLR OpenReview). It covers differentiating public vs. restricted comments, structuring rebuttals, addressing specific concerns (novelty, reproducibility), and maintaining professional communication standards for permanent records.

A comprehensive guide for political science scholars to pressure-test their research ideas against the standards of the American Political Science Review (APSR). This skill emphasizes demonstrating general disciplinary significance (matters to the field) over mere subfield novelty, guiding users through framing, contribution type, and appropriate track selection.

This guide outlines best practices for structuring academic papers submitted via OpenReview, particularly for venues like ICLR. It advises authors on where to place different types of evidence—such as core claims, full derivations, code, and large datasets—to ensure the central argument remains visible while maintaining academic rigor. It covers strategies for managing annexes, maintaining anonymity, and updating revisions.

Provides comprehensive guidelines for packaging supplementary materials, including code, data, model weights, and benchmarks, for major machine learning conferences like ICML. It details the requirements for both the double-blind review stage (focusing on anonymization and minimal replication commands) and the final public release package (ensuring permanent public links and clear licensing).

A comprehensive guide for structuring author responses to major academic conference reviews (e.g., ICSE). It distinguishes between the initial 'author response' and the structured 'Major Revision' letter. Learn how to address specific review criteria (Novelty, Rigor, Relevance, Verifiability) using a technical, neutral 'ledger' format, ensuring every claim is evidence-based and professionally presented.

This comprehensive guide details the entire ICSE conference paper review lifecycle, from initial submission to final decision. It analyzes the four core scoring criteria—Novelty, Rigor, Relevance, and Verifiability—and maps out the Accept/Major Revision/Reject decision model. Use this to strategically plan your revisions and understand the academic publishing landscape.

A comprehensive guide for authors submitting to major academic conferences (e.g., ICSE). It details the strict rules for differentiating mandatory core content (the 10-page limit) from supporting evidence, such as extended proofs, scripts, and raw data, which must be placed in an anonymized supplementary package. Learn the 'summarize-and-point' discipline to ensure verifiability and maintain reviewer trust.

This guide provides detailed structuring advice for writing empirical software engineering (SE) research papers for top-tier conferences like ICSE. It focuses on adopting the required academic rigor, including using Research Questions (RQs) as the core skeleton, mastering the 'Threats to Validity' section, and calibrating claims for verifiability. Learn how to structure the abstract, compress content into a 10-page limit, and address reviewer expectations in the SE community.

This guide provides comprehensive best practices for authors submitting software artifacts to academic venues like ICSME. It details how to structure packages, track provenance, and document code to achieve the IEEE Open Research Object and Research Object Reviewed badges. Learn how to design for rigorous, reproducible evaluation by evaluators in a bounded time frame.

A comprehensive guide for assembling supplementary materials for ICSME papers. It strictly outlines how to partition research findings, core techniques, and evidence between the limited 10-page body and the supplementary artifact. The key principle is that the paper must be fully judgeable from the reviewed pages alone, ensuring decision-critical evidence is never relegated solely to the appendix.