Skill UI

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.

A comprehensive guide for structuring high-level theoretical computer science papers for top-tier conferences like ICALP. It dictates how to present the model, state the theorem, demonstrate the improvement over prior bounds, and manage proof complexity within strict page limits, ensuring maximum clarity and verifiability for expert reviewers.

This guide details the rigorous process of condensing highly technical papers, especially in signal processing, into extremely constrained formats (e.g., 4-page conference submissions). It teaches structure, emphasizing the immediate presentation of the core signal-processing contribution, the mechanism, and task-matched metrics on the first page, ensuring the argument survives review by deep subfield experts.

A comprehensive guide for authors responding to IEEE ICDE peer reviews. Learn how to structure both rebuttals to initial concerns and detailed revise-and-resubmit change documents. The guide emphasizes strategic triage, anchoring answers to concrete evidence, addressing systems-level pushback (e.g., baselines, cost), and maintaining feasibility discipline within tight revision deadlines.

This guide provides strict guidelines for structuring technical conference papers, especially when supplementary proofs are required. It emphasizes the critical rule that the main body (typically 15 pages) must be self-contained and sufficient for a referee to judge the result's significance, even if they do not read the marked appendix. It strictly forbids external links or online supplements for review.

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.

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.