Skill UI

This skill guides authors to determine if their manuscript is suitable for the interdisciplinary journal Human Relations. It evaluates the paper's theoretical depth, conceptual breadth across disciplines (e.g., OB, sociology, industrial relations), and methodological rigor. It helps authors evaluate the fit, framing, and potential rejection risks of their work against the journal's focus on the social science of work and organizations.

This detailed skill helps authors assess the suitability of their manuscript for top-tier Human Resource Management (HRM) journals. It provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating a paper's theoretical contribution, empirical rigor (e.g., handling common-method bias, multilevel designs), and credible implications for practice. It guides the necessary re-framing, structure, and necessary comparisons with alternative journals, ensuring authors meet the high academic bar set by the field.

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 skill polishes scholarly prose for academic manuscripts, particularly in Human Relations and social science. It focuses on elevating the writing from technically correct but flat drafts to a theoretically engaged, highly readable, and narratively compelling register. It guides users on structuring the argument (puzzle to generativity), refining prose (cutting nominalizations, using process voice), and adhering to strict academic constraints (abstract length, word caps, anonymity).

A comprehensive guide for crafting academic rebuttals in response to peer reviews (e.g., ICALP). It teaches authors how to strategically address correctness doubts, correct factual misreadings, provide necessary clarifications, and honestly concede genuine gaps, all while adhering to strict double-blind rules and limited word counts. The focus is strictly on technical precision, helping authors improve their paper's acceptance chances.

A comprehensive guide on how to structure the 'Related Work' section for top-tier theoretical computer science conferences (like ICALP). It teaches authors how to prove their results are genuinely new and better by precisely comparing their bounds against the best known literature, correctly crediting prior venues (STOC, FOCS, etc.), and maintaining academic rigor under double-blind guidelines.

A comprehensive guide detailing the high-stakes, single-round, correctness-centered peer review process for top-tier theoretical computer science conferences like ICALP. It outlines the unique two-track system (Track A and Track B), review criteria, and provides actionable advice on interpreting reviewer feedback and structuring submissions compared to other major venues.

This guide provides structural best practices for writing highly technical academic papers, particularly for top-tier conferences. It teaches authors how to critically distinguish between the core material that must be visible in the main body (for the referee to follow and judge) and the auxiliary details, complete proofs, or routine calculations that can be safely deferred to an appendix. Following this structure prevents common writing pitfalls, such as 'hollow bodies,' ensuring the paper is both highly readable and technically rigorous.

This guide provides a structured framework for drafting professional rebuttals to academic conference reviews, such as ICASSP. It emphasizes the critical difference between correcting factual errors and addressing legitimate gaps. The focus must be on providing a clean rationale for the technical committee's acceptance, adopting a professional tone suitable for a single-blind review process, and anchoring all claims to the submitted material.

A comprehensive guide for authors submitting to top-tier computer vision conferences (like ICCV). It details the new single-deadline workflow, emphasizing the parallel production of code and videos. Learn how to structure supplementary materials for maximum reviewer impact, including detailed ablation studies, failure mode galleries, and maintaining strict double-blind anonymity in the archive.

A comprehensive guide for authors preparing submissions for top-tier computer vision conferences like ICCV. It instructs writers on structuring papers for a generalist reviewer pool, maintaining the 'inclusive 8-page economy,' adopting a mechanism-first exposition style, and formulating claims that withstand rigorous review and rebuttal cycles. Essential for elevating technical prose to a publishable standard.

This guide provides a comprehensive framework for authors to position their work against existing literature, concurrent submissions, and public scrutiny in top-tier AI conferences. It teaches how to separate similar components from identical scientific problems, build verifiable novelty claims, and respond robustly to reviewer challenges.