Skill UI

This skill provides a rigorous framework to evaluate the broad significance and quality of scientific research. It guides authors in determining if their work meets the standards for top-tier journals like PNAS, Science, or Nature, helping to make realistic calls on the optimal publication venue before drafting or after review.

This comprehensive guide teaches researchers how to systematically respond to peer reviews for high-impact journals. It covers triaging reviewer comments into 'Do,' 'Defend,' 'Defer,' and 'Do-partial' buckets, prioritizing necessary experiments, structuring the response letter, and maintaining a respectful, evidence-led tone. Essential for navigating the publication process and preserving claim integrity.

A comprehensive guide for authors structuring and formatting scientific manuscripts for PNAS Nexus. It details selecting the appropriate article type (e.g., Research Report, Review), managing page length budgets, ensuring the Materials and Methods section remains in the main text, and organizing results logically by argument, not chronology. Essential for successful scientific publishing.

A comprehensive guide for authors on navigating the two distinct response phases of academic conferences (e.g., PODS). It details how to write a concise, double-anonymous rebuttal (48-hour turn) and a structured revision cover letter, ensuring all technical gaps are addressed while maintaining anonymity and professional rigor.

This guide provides comprehensive steps for preparing a camera-ready version of an accepted academic conference paper, such as those for the PACMMOD PODS track. It covers essential tasks including complete de-anonymization, applying final journal formatting, integrating required revisions, populating detailed metadata (ORCID, DOI, CCS concepts), and ensuring the full version is correctly posted and cross-linked on arXiv.

This guide details the specific rules for assembling supplementary material for PODS submissions. It covers how to correctly partition content between the main 15-page body and the appendix, ensuring all mathematical proofs are complete, self-contained, and included within a single PDF file. It also addresses double-anonymous hygiene and page budget discipline.

This guide provides a comprehensive framework for authors to determine if their research manuscript fits the scope of Production and Operations Management (POM) and which specific department or journal is the best target. It outlines critical criteria, such as identifying a real operational decision, passing the practice-relevance gate, and strategically selecting a single department for submission, helping authors avoid common submission pitfalls.

A comprehensive guide for authors writing for high-impact journals like Physical Review Letters (PRL). It addresses the strict 'deductible budget' model where figures, equations, references, and text all count against a single limit. Provides systematic steps to triage content—such as moving derivations to Supplemental Material, compressing figures, and tightening prose—to ensure the core scientific claims remain clear and within publication guidelines.

This guide teaches the 'trust-minimum principle' for writing methods sections in short scientific letters (like PRL). It instructs authors on how to rigorously partition their work, keeping only the essential, trust-bearing details (setup, key controls, uncertainties) in the body, while relegating full derivations and extensive apparatus details to the Supplemental Material (SM). This ensures brevity without sacrificing scientific credibility.

This skill guides researchers through the rigorous process of determining if a scientific finding meets the 'Importance' and 'Broad Interest' criteria required for top-tier physics journals, such as Physical Review Letters (PRL). It diagnoses venue fit, helping authors frame their work to maximize visibility and impact, without altering the core scientific result. Useful for optimizing manuscript submissions and developing a clear narrative for non-specialist audiences.

A specialized methodology for theoretically placing a new model within an existing academic conversation. It instructs the user to build a 'rival map' by identifying diagnostic phenomena, contrasting them with established rival theories, and explicitly stating where the new theory excels, surpasses, or subsumes existing claims. This approach moves beyond simple literature review to active theoretical confrontation.

This skill guides researchers through the rigorous process of evaluating if their public administration project meets the standards of high-impact academic journals like the Public Administration Review (PAR). It ensures the work not only advances scholarly theory but also delivers actionable, credible 'evidence for practice' for real-world public managers and policymakers. Essential for refining scope and target venue.