Skill UI

A critical framework for evaluating art-historical projects, designed to elevate a local description or catalog entry into a significant, general disciplinary contribution. Use this guide to pressure-test the scope, argument strength, visual feasibility, and overall scholarly reach of your research before committing to deep writing.

This guide outlines the rigorous methodology of 'close looking' crucial for academic art writing, particularly for Art Bulletin articles. It teaches how to move beyond mere description by systematically analyzing composition, facture, medium, and scale. Every visual claim must be supported by reproducible evidence, such as numbered figures or detail crops, ensuring the argument is grounded in verifiable observation, not mere assertion.

This comprehensive guide details the strict academic formatting required for submitting art historical articles, particularly for journals adhering to The Chicago Manual of Style. It covers the use of CMOS endnotes (not footnotes), precise descriptive prose, and mandatory, structured formatting for captions, credit lines, and figure references.

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.

A structural guide for authors writing for top-tier organizational theory journals, such as ASQ. It teaches how to elevate the literature review from a simple annotated list to an explicit, argumentative entry that names a specific scholarly conversation, identifies a theoretical tension, and sharply defines the paper's unique contribution. This is crucial for passing peer review.

This guide provides a comprehensive framework for drafting a rebuttal letter to an academic journal (such as ASQ) after a major revision request. It teaches the critical process of structuring a point-by-point response, gracefully addressing conflicting reviewer opinions, and articulating how the paper's theoretical contribution has deepened to satisfy high academic standards. The focus is on professional communication and scholarly argumentation.

Provides a comprehensive guide to the developmental, multi-round review process at Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ). It explains decision types, reviewer roles, what to expect in each revision round, and how to strategically interpret complex decision letters to improve manuscript quality and submission strategy.

A comprehensive guide for structuring and refining exhibits (tables and figures) for high-level academic journals. It provides best practices for both qualitative data (e.g., data-to-theory tables, process models) and quantitative data (e.g., cumulative regression, interaction plots), ensuring that the visual presentation strengthens the core argument. Focuses on self-contained, rigorously formatted, and interpretable scholarly communication.

This guide details the specific structure and rigor required for writing systems papers for top-tier academic conferences like ATC. It emphasizes the need for a self-standing, two-page abstract (Round One) and a full-paper narrative that is purely implementation and measurement driven. Key principles include quantifying costs alongside gains, structuring the narrative from problem to impact, and rigorously supporting claims with real-world evidence.

This skill provides expert guidance on evaluating academic manuscripts, particularly those in auditing, accounting, and economics. It helps users determine the suitability of their work for specific, high-level journals (e.g., Auditing and Economics Research). It covers journal positioning, required methodology, structural requirements, common rejection pitfalls, and strategic advice for revision or resubmission.

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.

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.