Skill UI

This guide teaches users how to transform a collection of historical facts and sources into a sustained, contestable, and nuanced academic argument. It focuses on establishing a clear thesis, defining the stakes, building evidence chains, and proactively addressing counter-arguments, moving beyond mere description to provide genuine scholarly contribution.

A comprehensive guide for authors submitting revisions to top-tier academic journals, such as AJPS. It details the strategy, structure, and specific constraints required for the response memorandum following a Revise & Resubmit (R&R) decision. The guide emphasizes addressing every reviewer comment, reconciling conflicting demands, maintaining double-blind anonymity, and ensuring all new analyses are fully reproducible for third-party verification.

A comprehensive guide for responding to reviews and comments for the American Journal of Sociology (AJS). It structures persuasive, evidence-based rebuttal letters for Revise-and-Resubmit (R&R) stages or formal author replies to published Comments. Focuses on maintaining academic rigor, addressing conflicting points, and advancing the field's understanding through measured, theoretical engagement.

A comprehensive guide for addressing rigorous academic peer review feedback, especially for top-tier journals. It provides a structured, point-by-point framework for authors to revise their work, focusing on strengthening the core theoretical framework, integrating coverage gaps, establishing critical attitude, and maintaining scholarly balance. Use this when responding to major revisions or full-review referee reports.

This comprehensive framework guides researchers on assessing the suitability of a candidate literature topic for a high-impact, integrative academic review (e.g., Annals). It requires the topic to pass five critical criteria—Maturity, Importance, Fragmentation, Integrability, and Tractable Scope—ensuring the resulting review addresses a profound 'problem with the field' and proposes a forward-looking agenda, rather than just summarizing existing knowledge.

A comprehensive guide for authors addressing revise-and-resubmit (R&R) decisions for top-tier academic journals like the American Anthropologist. This framework teaches how to structure a diplomatic, point-by-point response that manages reviewer disagreements (especially cross-subfield conflicts), protects the core ethnographic contribution, and maintains ethical standards while guiding the editor toward acceptance.

A structured guide for academic researchers to scope and sanity-check research ideas for top-tier management journals like the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ). It ensures the topic is theory-driven, empirically feasible, and addresses a theoretical tension, helping authors elevate a vague idea into a publishable, impactful scholarly question.

This skill guides the stress-testing of theoretical manuscripts by focusing purely on logical coherence. It helps authors develop robust arguments by verifying proposition chains, running counterfactual thought experiments, addressing rival theories, and identifying disconfirming cases. It ensures the internal consistency and rigor of a theory, independent of empirical data analysis.

This guide provides a detailed strategy for responding to a Revise-and-Resubmit (R&R) decision for high-stakes academic journals. It teaches authors how to structure a persuasive cover letter, address conflicting reviewer demands, and reconcile feedback without weakening the paper's core contribution. Focuses on maintaining scholarly rigor and managing editor expectations.

A comprehensive guide for critically appraising primary academic studies (e.g., DID, IV, RDD) when writing literature reviews. It teaches how to assess the methodological credibility, robustness, and potential biases of existing evidence, ensuring the synthesis accurately reflects the field's best knowledge rather than merely counting conflicting results.

This guide details the critical process of revising a scholarly review article following feedback from journal editors or peer reviewers (e.g., ARPsych). It provides a structured methodology for addressing coverage gaps, ensuring balance, correcting inaccuracies, and maintaining the integrity of the manuscript's core argument (the 'spine'). It covers everything from point-by-point response letters to handling final copyediting queries.

A comprehensive guide for authors revising academic review articles, particularly for high-stakes journals. It teaches structured methods for addressing common referee feedback, such as coverage gaps, balance complaints, structural weaknesses, and accessibility issues. Use this guide to transform critical feedback into a robust, publishable revision plan, ensuring methodological transparency and scholarly rigor.