Skill UI

A guide for academic writers on how to succinctly position a research contribution against the single closest prior work in highly constrained formats (e.g., AER: Insights). It teaches authors to state the novelty (the 'delta') in one or two paragraphs, avoiding full literature reviews and focusing only on the marginal contribution.

A comprehensive guide for responding to reviews and comments for the American Journal of Sociology (AJS). It structures persuasive, evidence-based rebuttal letters for Revise-and-Resubmit (R&R) stages or formal author replies to published Comments. Focuses on maintaining academic rigor, addressing conflicting points, and advancing the field's understanding through measured, theoretical engagement.

A comprehensive guide for conducting rigorous academic literature reviews. It teaches authors how to critically appraise and synthesize conflicting empirical evidence by weighing findings based on credibility, study design, and contextual differences. The framework ensures balance, maintains objectivity, and elevates the quality of academic scholarship.

Designed for advanced academic reviews, this framework guides the development of a unifying 'spine' that transcends simple literature summaries. It forces the writer to impose a novel organizational logic—such as a typology, process model, or integrating construct—thereby achieving genuine theory advancement and defining the field's future research agenda. Use this when the draft reads like a disconnected list of papers.

This guide teaches researchers how to construct credible, high-impact synthesis exhibits for academic reviews (e.g., Academy of Management Annals). It focuses on creating framework figures, who-studied-what synthesis tables, and coverage exhibits that summarize existing literature, rather than presenting new primary data estimates. Essential for systematically structuring and communicating complex knowledge fields.

This guide teaches the unique, high-level writing style required for scholarly reviews, particularly in management science. It moves beyond simple description to crafting an authoritative, integrative, and agenda-setting argument. Learn how to structure a problem-first opening, articulate a clear critical position, and provide a future research roadmap, transforming a mere summary into a scholarly contribution.

This guide provides late-stage polishing for academic manuscripts, specifically targeting the Academy of Management Review (AMR) house style. It helps transform drafts that read like literature reviews or essays into tightly structured, argument-driven theoretical pieces. Key focus areas include establishing a clear theoretical puzzle in the introduction, maintaining continuous argumentative flow, ensuring precise definition of constructs, and articulating propositions without using hypothesis language. It is crucial for authors who need to refine their prose and structure before final subm...

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.

A comprehensive guide for authors facing a revise-and-resubmit (R&R) status in academic journals. It outlines the entire revision lifecycle, from building a structured response matrix and performing substantive re-analysis (re-coding, new experiments) to strategically drafting the point-by-point rebuttal letter. Focuses on maintaining academic rigor, reconciling conflicting reviews, and ensuring methodological consistency before final resubmission.

A comprehensive guide for critically appraising primary academic studies (e.g., DID, IV, RDD) when writing literature reviews. It teaches how to assess the methodological credibility, robustness, and potential biases of existing evidence, ensuring the synthesis accurately reflects the field's best knowledge rather than merely counting conflicting results.

This framework provides a systematic methodology for imposing a strong analytical structure or taxonomy on academic literature, particularly for Annual Reviews (ARE). It guides the writer to move beyond merely compiling annotated bibliographies and instead building a cohesive argument about an entire field. Users select a primary 'spine' (e.g., taxonomy, unifying model, question sequence) to organize research, ensuring the review is both comprehensive and highly accessible to non-specialists.

This guide details the complete post-delivery review cycle for invited Annual Reviews of Economics (ARE) articles. It sets clear expectations regarding the annual publication cadence, the high standards for accuracy, rigor, and balance, and outlines the stages from committee review through final production. It is essential reading for authors needing to understand the non-rolling, annual nature of the publication timeline.