Skill UI

A comprehensive guide detailing the specific narrative arc and strict formatting rules for writing technical papers for top-tier system conferences like OSDI. It teaches authors how to structure an argument—from identifying operational pain points to proposing a novel mechanism and presenting measurable results—while adhering to strict constraints such as the 12-page limit and avoiding appendices. This skill focuses on improving scholarly communication and technical clarity.

A comprehensive guide for researchers positioning academic work within the pervasive and ubiquitous computing literature (e.g., PerCom, MobiCom). It teaches the critical 'delta-first' method, instructing authors to highlight their unique contribution and novelty contrast against the nearest prior work, rather than simply listing citations. Essential for proving field command and eligibility.

This guide provides strict guidelines for structuring supplementary material for PerCom conference papers. The core rule is that the main paper body (within the tight 9-page budget) must be self-contained, allowing a reviewer to make a decision without accessing the dataset or appendix. Learn how to properly partition evidence, manage page budgets, and adhere to double-blind review rules.

This comprehensive guide outlines the specific structural, stylistic, and scientific standards required for submitting papers to Pervasive Computing (PerCom) venues. It helps researchers elevate technically sound work by ensuring the narrative strongly emphasizes the real-world, human-centered contribution of the pervasive system, focusing on cross-subject evidence, rigorous limitation discussion, and adherence to strict academic page limits.

This resource guides authors on structuring the conclusion of a major review essay, particularly in the humanities or social sciences. It teaches how to transform a sharp academic critique into a specific, portable, and generative research agenda, ensuring the core contribution ('so what') is explicit, actionable, and useful for other scholars in the field.

This tool guides the process of positioning a comprehensive review essay within a highly technical and debated academic field. It helps users define the precise scope (corpus boundaries), map the major scholarly camps and core disagreements, and strategically locate their own intervention point, ensuring the review reads as authoritative and current.

This comprehensive guide provides a structured framework for authors responding to major or minor revisions (R&R) decisions from academic journals. It teaches authors how to build a rigorous, point-by-point rebuttal letter that strengthens the core argument, integrates missed literature, and addresses reviewer concerns strategically, ensuring the revision elevates the research intervention rather than simply adding word count.

A comprehensive preflight checklist for authors submitting to academic journals, specifically modeled after the requirements for Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) via SAGE Track. It guides users through critical steps, including maintaining double-anonymity, confirming the genre (review article vs. empirical study), adhering to strict word counts (~8,000 words), and following specific style guides (SAGE Harvard). Use this tool immediately before the final upload to ensure submission compliance.

A guide for creating high-impact, conceptual figures and tables for academic review essays. Focuses on synthetic works like typologies, framework diagrams, and concept genealogies, which map arguments and relationships rather than plotting empirical data. Learn how to make your exhibits legible, claim-bearing, and highly reusable for maximum scholarly impact.

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.

This skill guides authors on adapting philosophical arguments for public concern, specifically targeting venues like Philosophy & Public Affairs. It details the required academic rigor, scope (e.g., justice, bioethics, democracy), and structural elements needed for a manuscript to succeed. It serves as a fit check, helping authors sharpen their thesis, engage with opposing viewpoints, and maintain a strong connection between abstract theory and real-world public problems.

A comprehensive guide and checklist for authors targeting Physical Review Applied (PRApplied). This skill helps evaluate whether a manuscript successfully bridges fundamental physics principles (e.g., quantum, photonics, energy) with concrete technological applications, providing heuristics on scope, evidence standards, and house style for submission.