Skill UI

A comprehensive guide for authors responding to major or minor revisions following peer review. It details how to systematically triage reviewer reports, plan rigorous new in vivo or human experiments, structure point-by-point rebuttal letters, and maintain scientific rigor while narrowing claims. Designed for biomedical research and academic publishing.

Provides comprehensive guidelines for authors preparing high-impact front matter for leading cancer journals (e.g., Cancer Cell). It details the structure and content requirements for the Summary, Highlights, eTOC blurb, and Graphical Abstract, ensuring mechanistic accuracy, impact, and adherence to publication standards.

This sophisticated tool is designed to polish scientific manuscripts for high-impact, rigorous journals. It guides users in structuring a mechanistic narrative, ensuring that every claim made in the text is precisely calibrated to the strength of the supporting experimental evidence (e.g., distinguishing correlation from necessity). It focuses on scientific storytelling, nomenclature consistency, and eliminating hype, transforming raw research data into a polished, scholarly article.

A comprehensive guide for authors preparing a rebuttal response for major academic conferences (like CCS). It teaches strategic communication, focusing on triaging decision-critical issues (threat model, ethics, novelty), structuring arguments by conceding strong points, anchoring claims to existing evidence, and avoiding over-promising. Essential for authors facing adversarial review patterns.

This guide details how to audit and position security research submissions for premier academic venues like CCS, S&P, USENIX, and NDSS. It teaches authors to structure their 'Related Work' section by comparing their novelty against the 'security big four,' specialist literature, and real-world practitioner records (such as CVEs and vendor advisories). The goal is to clearly articulate the technical delta and eligibility for publication.

A comprehensive guide for authors planning research submissions to top-tier academic security conferences like CCS. It details the two-cycle HotCRP workflow, decision criteria, and strategic advice on addressing threat model soundness, novelty, evidence quality, and crucial ethical disclosure concerns across all stages, from initial review to minor revision.

A comprehensive guide for creating publication-quality scientific figures, adhering to high-impact journal standards. Covers critical topics such as optimal sizing for print widths, displaying underlying raw data (dot plots, replicates), ensuring colorblind accessibility, structuring stand-alone legends, and maintaining image integrity. Essential reading for researchers preparing manuscripts.

This skill guides researchers through the critical pre-writing process of evaluating a scientific finding's scope, mechanistic depth, and significance. It stress-tests whether the work constitutes a complete, hypothesis-driven story suitable for top-tier journals, helping authors determine if they need to strengthen the mechanism, collect more converging evidence, or adjust their target journal venue.

A comprehensive guide to restructuring scientific manuscripts from a collection of isolated findings into a single, compelling, and cohesive narrative arc. It forces the story into a Hypothesis → Mechanism → Significance structure, ensuring that every figure advances a central, airtight argument, crucial for top-tier journal submissions.

A comprehensive guide for late-stage polishing of high-impact scientific manuscripts (e.g., for Cell). This skill teaches how to generate three mandatory communication artifacts: structured Highlights (3-4 bullet points, $\le 85$ chars), a third-person eTOC blurb (~50 words) for non-specialists, and a self-contained Graphical Abstract. Focuses on converting complex data into highly consumable, publication-ready narratives.

This comprehensive guide teaches the methodology for crafting professional, evidence-based rebuttal letters in response to demanding peer reviews (e.g., Cell). It instructs users on triaging reviewer comments into actionable categories (Do, Defend, etc.), prioritizing necessary new experiments based on impact and feasibility, and systematically addressing the core 'completeness' gaps demanded by top-tier journals, all while maintaining a respectful and academic tone.

This guide acts as a structured workflow router for scientists preparing manuscripts for high-impact journals like Cell. It doesn't write the paper but diagnoses the current stage (e.g., narrative structure, data deposition, figure quality, citation style) and directs the author to the specific skill needed next, ensuring the manuscript meets the high standards of mechanistic completeness required for publication.