Skill UI

This skill provides a comprehensive review pass for econometric theory manuscripts. It guides authors in polishing prose, ensuring rigorous theorem-proof clarity, standardizing notation, and enforcing adherence to specific academic journal formatting guidelines (e.g., APA style, 11pt font, abstract length, running head). It is essential for generating highly rigorous and publication-ready academic submissions.

This guide provides a structured strategy for authors responding to major academic revisions, particularly in environmental science. It teaches how to transform reviewer critiques—such as demands for QA/QC, mass balances, or new controls—into evidence-based responses. The key is to structure the letter, address every point concretely, and defend the scientific contribution while maintaining clarity and professionalism for the editor.

A comprehensive guide for authors submitting to top-tier Software Engineering (SE) conferences (like FSE, ICSE). It details how to structure the Related Work section by focusing on the 'delta'—the unique difference—between your work and prior art. It emphasizes covering the full SE literature landscape, maintaining anonymity, and correctly declaring overlaps with concurrent or prior versions.

This guide ensures that manuscripts for Global Environmental Change (GEC) are rigorous and highly readable for an interdisciplinary, policy-relevant audience. It focuses on polishing prose, front-loading contributions, minimizing jargon, and structuring discussions to meet strict word and abstract caps, ensuring clarity across environmental science, governance, and policy domains.

A comprehensive guide for crafting academic rebuttals in response to peer reviews (e.g., ICALP). It teaches authors how to strategically address correctness doubts, correct factual misreadings, provide necessary clarifications, and honestly concede genuine gaps, all while adhering to strict double-blind rules and limited word counts. The focus is strictly on technical precision, helping authors improve their paper's acceptance chances.

A comprehensive guide for structuring high-level theoretical computer science papers for top-tier conferences like ICALP. It dictates how to present the model, state the theorem, demonstrate the improvement over prior bounds, and manage proof complexity within strict page limits, ensuring maximum clarity and verifiability for expert reviewers.

This guide outlines the professional and technical process for authors responding to peer reviewers after a major conference submission (e.g., ICDT). It emphasizes that the revision must be a substantive correction—closing all identified proofs gaps, clarifying models, and documenting changes—rather than a mere argument or debate over taste. It provides a structured, point-by-point approach for maximizing the chances of acceptance.

Provides a comprehensive guide to the ICRA conference paper review process. Details the unique pipeline, from submission through the CEB review board, highlighting key structural differences from journal reviews. Special attention is paid to the absence of an author rebuttal phase, advising authors on strategies like anticipating objections, using video evidence, and maximizing clarity to improve acceptance chances.

This guide provides rigorous standards for authors, detailing how to convert dense statistical outputs (like complex regression coefficients or parameter estimates) into clear, single-question exhibits for top economics journals. It emphasizes shifting focus from mere statistical reporting (e.g., significance stars) to communicating core economic mechanisms, comparative statics, and parameter identification, ensuring the argument is immediately legible to a broad, expert audience.

This guide clarifies what constitutes an 'artifact' for pure-theory venues like ITCS. It emphasizes that the core deliverable is not code or functional components, but the mathematical argument itself. Successful evaluation relies on providing complete, self-contained proofs within the submitted PDF, along with citing dependencies precisely. It details how to handle minor computational content to ensure static, verifiable checks.

A comprehensive guide for authors responding to journal reviewers' reports (e.g., JACS). It details how to systematically triage comments into data-required, clarification, or disagreement; how to structure a professional, point-by-point response letter; and how to maintain scientific rigor when performing necessary experiments.

This guide provides comprehensive rules for polishing scientific manuscripts to meet the rigorous standards of the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS). It focuses on refining language, ensuring structural clarity, standardizing nomenclature and units, and enforcing 'Claim Discipline' by replacing vague boosters (e.g., 'novel,' 'dramatically improved') with concrete data and quantitative evidence. Ideal for authors whose data is solid but whose prose requires academic refinement.