Skill UI

A comprehensive guide for structuring and writing academic rebuttals for major conferences. It details time budgeting, how to address common reviewer objections with concrete evidence, and best practices for maintaining professional credibility throughout the intense review cycle.

A comprehensive guide for drafting author responses to highly technical peer reviews in top-tier theoretical conferences. Learn how to repair perceived gaps, address objections regarding proof correctness, tightness, and novelty-of-technique, while adhering to specific academic policies and structure.

Provides a comprehensive guide for authors responding to highly technical conference reviews, particularly focusing on the critical 'one-shot major revision response letter.' It details strategies for maintaining strict double-anonymity, structuring the rebuttal around decision-critical points (soundness, reproducibility), and creating a detailed change ledger to systematically address every minimum necessary change requested by reviewers.

This guide outlines the strategic allocation of content—such as results, methods, and limitations—into the main body, appendix, or artifact for academic submissions. The core principle is 'decision-criticality': any information a reviewer must read to accept the paper must reside in the main body, ensuring key findings are not hidden in supplementary materials or repositories.

A specialized tool designed to guide authors in drafting professional and structured rebuttal letters for academic journals, particularly those in Public Administration. It provides detailed templates and guidance for addressing reviewer comments, focusing specifically on strengthening theoretical frameworks and justifying methodological fits to meet high academic standards.

This guide provides a systematic framework for authors preparing revision response letters and revision explanations for academic journals. It covers essential strategies for handling major vs. minor revisions, structuring point-by-point responses, addressing conflicting opinions, and ensuring all changes are accurately documented. Ideal for authors aiming to successfully resubmit a manuscript.

A comprehensive guide for authors preparing research manuscripts for top-tier academic economics journals. It details the systematic process of responding to reviewer reports (R&R), covering structural requirements, appropriate tones (acceptance, partial acceptance, rejection), and specific methodological tips (e.g., addressing endogeneity, mechanism identification, and policy relevance in the context of Chinese economics).

Provides comprehensive guidelines for developing and reporting high-stakes academic analyses, particularly in the social sciences and anthropology. It teaches authors how to ground every interpretive claim in specific evidence, proactively address alternative readings, integrate disconfirming data, and maintain methodological transparency to ensure the work survives rigorous expert peer review.

A comprehensive guide for drafting a single-page academic rebuttal after conference reviews (e.g., CVPR). It teaches authors how to strategically address multiple reviews, correct factual errors, and clarify scope within strict formatting and content limitations, focusing on the Area Chair's perspective and emphasizing data over adjectives.

A comprehensive guide for authors addressing the rebuttal window for major NLP/AI conferences (like EACL). It details how to strategically triage reviewer objections, craft responses for both individual reviewers and the action editor's meta-review, plan runnable in-window experiments, and make critical decisions about the paper's future venue.

This comprehensive guide structures the process for authors responding to reviewers' reports (R&R) from top-tier academic journals. It provides a step-by-step plan for drafting the response letter, ensuring a respectful, evidence-based tone, and systematically addressing all major concerns regarding economic mechanism, identification, and broad relevance. It emphasizes strategic negotiation and structural rigor.

This skill guides authors preparing manuscripts for academic journals, specifically addressing the unique 'Panel Review' model (like those at Economic Policy). Instead of standard anonymous refereeing, the paper faces a live debate from two named discussants (Academic and Policy). It teaches authors how to 'war-game' these experts, anticipating their specific objections on rigor and relevance, and planning pre-emptive fixes or precise live rebuttals.