Skill UI

This guide outlines the stringent reproducibility and data requirements for submitting manuscripts to Agricultural Systems (AgSy). Because AgSy treats code, models, and algorithms as research data, authors must learn how to deposit all materials in a recognized repository (e.g., Zenodo, OSF), cite them permanently, and document the model structure, parameters, and versions. It provides a checklist for building a reproducible research workflow.

This comprehensive guide provides a structured strategy for handling major scientific manuscript revisions and writing professional rebuttal letters. It instructs authors on how to systematically address every reviewer concern—especially regarding mechanism, scale, uncertainty, and reproducibility—while ensuring the revised manuscript remains perfectly synchronized with the archived data and code.

A comprehensive guide for authors submitting to top-tier computer vision conferences (like ICCV). It details the new single-deadline workflow, emphasizing the parallel production of code and videos. Learn how to structure supplementary materials for maximum reviewer impact, including detailed ablation studies, failure mode galleries, and maintaining strict double-blind anonymity in the archive.

This guide helps authors structure lengthy academic manuscripts, ensuring the main text maintains a clear, focused narrative while relegating supportive, detailed evidence to the appendices or supplementary materials. It outlines the 'determinative' principle, advising where to place hyperparameters, extended experiments, proof details, and code links to meet high journal standards and maximize readability for reviewers.

This guide outlines the proper placement of various research materials—including proofs, code, and extended results—within major academic conference submissions. It helps authors understand which content must be presented in the main body, which belongs in appendices, and how to correctly manage supplementary manuscripts and code/data supplements to maximize the chance of reviewer acceptance.

This guide provides detailed standards for structuring and writing manuscripts submitted to the INFORMS Journal on Computing (IJOC). It mandates a precise, methods-forward, and quantitative voice, ensuring the paper is accessible to both Operations Research (OR) and Computer Science (CS) audiences. Key elements covered include abstract structure (≤300 words, no formulas), rapid contribution framing in the introduction, and using numbered pseudocode for methods.

This guide polishes academic prose to meet the rigorous standards of top economics and accounting journals (e.g., JAE). It ensures the writing is precise, hypothesis-driven, and structured according to positive-accounting tradition. It covers mandatory elements like structured sections (numbered), Harvard author-date referencing, and required packaging (Highlights, Keywords, JEL codes).

A comprehensive guide for authors facing a Journal of Consumer Research (JCR) revise-and-resubmit decision. This skill outlines the systematic process of planning major revisions, executing new studies or analyses, ensuring compliance with mandatory data transparency requirements (e.g., OSF deposits, replication code), and drafting a highly structured, point-by-point response letter that satisfies the editor and reviewers.

A comprehensive guide for managing the highly critical stage of journal revision. This skill helps researchers decode editor feedback, strategically decide on necessary data collection (e.g., new countries, invariance tests), and structure a professional, point-by-point response letter that addresses every reviewer comment effectively while maintaining scholarly rigor.

This guide provides a comprehensive framework for authors responding to major journal revisions. It teaches how to structure a technical, point-by-point rebuttal, systematically closing proof gaps, strengthening assumptions, incorporating missing baselines, and preparing the entire codebase and data for professional reproducibility review.

A comprehensive guide for structuring point-by-point responses to reviewers after a major academic review (RED). It emphasizes prioritizing model critiques, quantitative evidence, calibration discipline, and maintaining code/data archive updates. This skill ensures your rebuttal is structured, rigorous, and directly addresses the core concerns of quantitative reviewers.

This tool guides the transformation of a coded, screened corpus into a robust analytical spine for academic synthesis. It moves beyond simple annotated bibliography summaries by requiring the construction of a conceptual framework (e.g., taxonomy, theoretical model, tensions). This structure ensures the review advances theory or policy, providing a coherent, critical argument for the field.