Skill UI

This skill provides a rigorous framework for political scientists to pre-test their research projects against the standards of the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS). It evaluates whether a topic has a sharp, generalizable question, demonstrates strong causal identification, provides a substantive theoretical contribution, and fits the appropriate submission type (Article, Research Note, Correspondence). Use this before committing significant time to writing.

A comprehensive ethical framework for anthropological research (AA), focusing on accountability, informed consent, and the 'ethics of care.' This skill guides researchers on protecting vulnerable populations, handling cultural heritage, human remains, and determining what data can and cannot be shared. It emphasizes that protecting people always overrides data sharing requirements.

This guide helps researchers structure their discussion section and manuscript to explicitly articulate the theoretical contribution, moving beyond simple results reporting. It teaches how to identify, claim, and frame various types of theoretical advancements (e.g., new mechanisms, boundaries, or integrating literatures), ensuring the paper meets the high standards of top-tier academic journals like AMJ.

Provides a comprehensive guide to the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) editorial and peer-review process. It details the stages from desk review to final decision letter interpretation. Users learn how to distinguish between fatal and fixable concerns, prioritize the action editor's feedback, and strategically plan deep, multi-round revisions, turning feedback into actionable research improvements.

This guide helps researchers navigate and interpret the rigorous, multi-round developmental review process of the Academy of Management Review (AMR). It explains the core criteria (theoretical contribution, logical soundness) and decision signals, assisting authors in understanding editor priorities and triaging reviewer comments before drafting a response. It is a strategic guide for understanding the academic feedback process.

This guide helps pure-mathematics researchers precisely state and frame the main theorems of their manuscripts for submission to top-tier journals. It emphasizes techniques for quantifying novelty, separating the core headline result from corollaries, and rigorously positioning the work relative to the existing state of the art, mimicking the structure of Annals of Mathematics submissions.

A comprehensive guide for authors targeting the Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics (ARA&A). It details the journal's unique positioning as a high-impact, invited review venue, emphasizing that it publishes critical syntheses, not primary research. Use this tool to scope, frame, and check the evidence bar, house style, and submission requirements for authoritative, cross-disciplinary astronomical reviews.

This guide teaches researchers how to articulate the core conceptual contribution of their work, especially for manuscripts in Accounting, Organizations, and Society (AOS). It moves beyond simply reporting findings or extending literature, helping the user synthesize solid evidence into a single, compelling, and conceptually deep claim that shifts the field’s understanding of accounting's social or organizational mechanisms. It is essential for structuring the discussion section's intellectual payoff.

This guide provides comprehensive methodological blueprints for designing scholarly manuscripts submitted to Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS). It covers various research paradigms, including qualitative field studies, behavioral experiments, surveys, and historical/archival inquiries. Emphasis is placed on rigorous planning, ethical considerations (IRB approval, consent, anonymity), and maintaining theoretical alignment between the research design and the core argument, helping researchers avoid methodological pitfalls.

A comprehensive guide detailing the unique process of proposing a research topic to the Annual Review of Economics (ARE). It explains that ARE operates on a commissioning basis, guiding authors on how to structure a compelling, committee-ready topic pitch—focusing on the organizing spine, required scope, and market rationale—rather than submitting a finished manuscript.

A comprehensive guide detailing the complete academic review pipeline for IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering (ASE) submissions. It explains unique stages like the early-rejection gate, the criteria-bound revision process, and the difference between ASE's cycle and those of peer conferences (e.g., ICSE, FSE). Essential reading for authors aiming to submit high-quality research in automatic software engineering.

This guide assists researchers in structuring and presenting academic evidence for top-tier journals like ASQ. It provides best practices for both qualitative (establishing transparent data-to-theory links, coding transparency) and quantitative (ensuring robust mechanism testing and alternative explanation checks) analyses. It ensures all theoretical claims are auditable and fully supported by the raw data.