Skill UI

This sophisticated workflow orchestrator is designed for authors submitting manuscripts to *American Anthropologist*. It acts as a guide, routing the user through the necessary stages—from initial idea selection and literature positioning to theory building and ethical review. It ensures the final work maintains a required anthropological breadth, integrating reflexivity and ethics of care throughout the writing process.

This is the definitive workflow guide for submitting academic manuscripts in Chinese sport science. It helps researchers determine the manuscript's sub-discipline, methodological approach, theoretical level, and target audience, ensuring accurate matching with specific CSSCI-level journals. It serves as a crucial router to prevent misdirected submissions.

This comprehensive routing skill guides users through the complex process of selecting the most appropriate English-language academic journal for their manuscript. It acts as a high-level meta-guide, moving beyond single-journal profiles. Users classify their work based on its contribution type (e.g., causal effect, new theory), methodological shape (e.g., structural, field experiment), target discipline (e.g., finance, marketing), and ultimate submission goal (e.g., top-5 venue). It provides actionable advice for re-framing and optimizing fit.

Provides a comprehensive strategy for responding to major journal revisions, especially in Earth and Planetary Science. It guides authors on how to satisfy conflicting technical demands from multiple reviewers by routing detailed evidence to supplements while keeping the main text concise, persuasive, and compliant with strict formatting rules.

This guide provides a comprehensive understanding of the Human Relations (HR) journal's two-gate review system. It details the editorial scoping screen, the double-anonymous developmental peer review, and how to accurately interpret various decision types (e.g., Major Revision vs. Reject). It is crucial for authors to calibrate expectations regarding theoretical contribution, process timelines, and strategic decisions about rerouting to sibling journals.

This guide helps researchers evaluate whether a security or privacy project is a suitable fit for top-tier academic conferences like IEEE S&P. It covers critical fit tests, such as establishing a defensible threat model and ensuring end-to-end evidence closure. It also provides advice on SoK paper formats, routing among major security venues (USENIX, CCS, NDSS), and adhering to submission rules like one-year embargoes.

This guide helps researchers evaluate whether their finance manuscript is suitable for top-tier academic journals like the Journal of Banking & Finance (JBF). It provides a detailed framework to check for institutional content, rigorous empirical design, external relevance, and the potential to significantly change prior assumptions, while also offering routing advice to alternative specialized venues.

A comprehensive guide detailing the rigorous review process for top-tier academic journals, using the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) as a model. It educates authors on area-editor routing, the meaning of double-anonymized reviews, common desk-reject pitfalls, and provides a structured method for interpreting complex decision letters (Major/Minor Revision) to maximize acceptance chances.

A comprehensive routing guide for developing and refining academic manuscripts targeting the Journal of the European Economic Association (JEEA). This skill diagnoses bottlenecks at every stage—from initial topic selection and theory modeling to empirical robustness checks and rebuttal strategy—ensuring the submission meets the high general-interest standards of top-tier economics journals.

A comprehensive guide detailing the multi-stage evaluation process for submitting to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP). It covers section routing, the critical innovation gate, classifying limitations (central vs. peripheral), and understanding the decision categories (Accept/Revise/Reject). This resource helps authors set realistic expectations and correctly interpret reviewer feedback.

A comprehensive guide to the Operations Research (OR) academic publishing review process. This guide explains the departmental editorial routing, the soft double-anonymous review model, and how to interpret complex decision letters (Reject, Major/Minor Revision, Accept). It details the roles of Area and Associate Editors, and provides actionable strategies for authors to strengthen their technical contributions and respond effectively to reviewer feedback.

This tool acts as an orchestrator for writing *Progress in Human Geography* manuscripts. It guides authors through the entire writing process by routing the piece based on its lifecycle stage, genre (Review Article vs. Progress Report), and whether the topic is truly review-worthy. It systematically ensures the resulting work is synthetic, critical, and focused on developing a core academic argument.