Skill UI

Provides a comprehensive strategy and format for responding to major/minor revisions in academic publishing, especially in systems science and modeling. It guides authors on how to address reviewer comments, reconcile conflicting feedback, strengthen models, and write a professional cover letter to the editor while maintaining the integrity of the core scientific contribution.

A comprehensive guide for authors planning research submissions to top-tier academic security conferences like CCS. It details the two-cycle HotCRP workflow, decision criteria, and strategic advice on addressing threat model soundness, novelty, evidence quality, and crucial ethical disclosure concerns across all stages, from initial review to minor revision.

A comprehensive guide to managing the modern CSCW (Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work) submission timeline. It details the shift from rigid, fixed cycles to a flexible, rolling submission model, emphasizing that success relies on treating the process as a long-term 'revision campaign' rather than a quick deadline sprint. Learn how to strategically plan for revisions and maintain momentum across extended academic cycles.

A detailed guide for modeling the complete academic peer-review lifecycle, specifically tailored to the ECCV conference structure. It covers the timeline from submission through rebuttal and AC discussion to final decision, detailing critical points such as co-author enforcement regimes, LLM policy adherence, panel reviewer composition, and strategic points influencing the final outcome. Essential for researchers targeting top-tier vision conferences.

This guide details the rigorous, journal-style review process for FSE submissions. It covers double-anonymous review, the three-reviewer program committee model, and the significance of Major Revision as a full revise-and-resubmit round. It helps authors understand how to strategically strengthen their work by addressing structural vs. revisable gaps, maximizing their chances of acceptance, and differentiating FSE's process from other conferences.

This guide outlines the professional and technical process for authors responding to peer reviewers after a major conference submission (e.g., ICDT). It emphasizes that the revision must be a substantive correction—closing all identified proofs gaps, clarifying models, and documenting changes—rather than a mere argument or debate over taste. It provides a structured, point-by-point approach for maximizing the chances of acceptance.

This guide provides a detailed walkthrough of the comprehensive, multi-stage academic journal review process, modeled after top-tier Chinese journals like CJC. It covers the entire lifecycle, from initial editorial screening and double-blind expert review to revision and final acceptance. Use it to strategically plan your submission rhythm, anticipate required revisions, and scientifically strengthen your manuscript to maximize acceptance chances.

This guide simulates and advises on the complex, multi-stage process of academic peer review, modeled after rigorous conferences like ISSTA. It covers double-anonymous reviewing, the Accept/Major-Revision/Reject outcome model, and detailed evaluation criteria (e.g., Soundness, Verifiability). Use it to structure research arguments, anticipate reviewer critiques, and plan revisions through multiple submission deadlines.

This guide models the specific, high-stakes review pipeline of the ITCS conference. It emphasizes that submissions are judged as-is, with no opportunity for rebuttal or revision. The focus is on conceptual novelty and making the paper completely self-contained. Use this to calibrate your expectations and preemptively address potential reviewer objections in your initial draft.

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.

This tool acts as a comprehensive workflow router for researchers targeting The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization (JLEO). It guides users through the entire academic process, from initial topic selection and literature positioning to developing models, ensuring robustness, and handling revision and rebuttal stages. It helps diagnose current bottlenecks and determines the optimal next specialized skill to use.

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.