Skill UI

A comprehensive guide for authors writing the Related Work section for high-impact journals (e.g., Acta Electronica Sinica). It teaches how to structure the review critically, moving beyond mere chronology to organize by technical path, defining scope, articulating clear technical deficiencies, and precisely positioning the paper's novelty against state-of-the-art methods.

This guide provides comprehensive rules for authors revising technical papers for top AI/Statistics conferences like AISTATS. It emphasizes achieving statistical rigor, explicitly stating assumptions, pairing every claim with proof or evidence, ensuring conciseness (e.g., adhering to an 8-page limit), and maintaining double-blind academic style. Perfect for PhD students or researchers preparing manuscripts for highly technical review.

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.

This guide provides comprehensive strategies for drafting and revising highly technical academic papers for top-tier conferences like ASPLOS. It focuses on structuring the core argument around cross-layer insights, ensuring claims are quantifiable and bounded, and optimizing the entire manuscript to survive rapid peer review and strict page limitations.

A comprehensive guide for authors submitting storage-related research to top-tier conferences (e.g., USENIX FAST). It dictates how to structure the paper, emphasizing leading with the specific storage cost addressed (e.g., write amplification, tail latency, endurance) and grounding all claims in proportional, real-device evidence rather than generic performance statements. Essential for ensuring technical rigor and reviewer trust.

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.

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 guide details best practices for revising technical papers submitted to top AI conferences (e.g., IJCAI). It teaches authors how to structure their work to maximize clarity, emphasize broad AI significance, and ensure the paper is self-contained and accessible to a diverse, cross-disciplinary review committee.

A comprehensive guide for researchers on how to structure, package, and document complex scientific artifacts (e.g., simulation results, specialized code) to ensure reproducibility for academic reviewers. It details setting scope tiers (Reproduce, Regenerate, Inspect) and mitigating technical challenges like build fragility and runtime discrepancies.

A comprehensive guide for positioning highly technical research in top-tier academic venues like ISCA. It instructs authors on deep literature surveying across multiple databases (ACM, IEEE, dblp, arXiv), structuring the 'related work' section using structural differentiation (mechanism delta), and adhering to double-blind review guidelines. Essential for advanced technical paper writing.

This guide outlines the optimal strategy for submitting supplementary material to highly selective technical conferences like ISCA. It addresses the challenge of fitting extensive evidence within strict page limits while maintaining double-blind review integrity. Key topics include fully anonymized artifact links, staging evidence for the revision window, and structuring the post-acceptance release.

This guide helps authors structure highly technical security papers, especially for venues with strict page limits like NDSS. It details how to allocate content across the main body, ethics considerations, and appendices, ensuring the core decision-making arguments remain self-contained and maximally persuasive to reviewers by passing the 'dependency test'.