Skill UI

This guide provides a deep dive into the rigorous FOCS (Foundations of Computer Science) review process. It models the entire academic pipeline—from initial assignment and expert consultation to committee discussion and final decision—allowing authors to predict how their work will be evaluated based on correctness, novelty, and overall field contribution in a double-blind setting.

A comprehensive guide detailing the best practices for drafting and revising highly technical academic papers, specifically tailored for top-tier conferences like FOCS. It emphasizes front-loading key results within the first ten pages, pairing informal statements with formal theorems, and calibrating prose for a broad, non-specialist committee.

This comprehensive guide details the rigorous, double-blind, two-phase review process of the ACM/IEEE HRI conference. It breaks down every stage—from initial desk checks and track assignments to the critical author rebuttal and program-committee meetings. Learn where authors can maximize their impact, what reviewers prioritize (impact over polish), and how to strategically write rebuttals to influence the final decision.

A comprehensive guide for authors preparing a rebuttal following academic conference early decisions (e.g., ICSME). It details how to structure a highly focused, single-round response, emphasizing answering specific Program Committee questions, using only evidence already present in the submitted work, and maintaining strict anonymity. This skill is crucial for maximizing impact when a major revision round is unavailable.

This comprehensive guide details the end-to-end technical program committee (TPC) review process for major academic conferences like INTERSPEECH. It walks through every stage—from initial submission and area assignment to independent review, rebuttal, meta-review, and final decision. Users can learn how to decode reviewer feedback, understand the limitations of the rebuttal, and develop a strategic plan for future submissions and research refinement.

A comprehensive guide for managing the high-stakes rebuttal and revision period after major academic conference submissions. It teaches authors how to strategically triage reviewer objections (factual errors, evidence gaps, design flaws) by their leverage, structure the written response for maximum committee impact, and perform surgical revisions without inadvertently restructuring the core paper.

This guide models the three-stage review process for the Journal on Communications (JOC). It helps authors understand the initial screening (format, relevance, plagiarism), expert peer review, and final committee review. By predicting potential outcomes and identifying strategic 'levers' at each stage, users can effectively revise manuscripts, manage submission timelines, and significantly increase the chances of successful publication in communication, networking, or information security fields.

A comprehensive preflight checklist for submitting manuscripts to high-tier academic journals. It verifies workflow compliance (e.g., ScholarOne), double-anonymity, adherence to strict page limits, preparation of the transparency commitment, and proper formatting (APA 7th). This guide ensures authors are fully prepared for the rigorous academic submission process.

A comprehensive guide for authors on formulating strong rebuttals and executing rigorous one-shot revisions following peer review. It teaches systematic triage of reviewer points (factual, weakness, question) and emphasizes maintaining consistency and fulfilling all commitments to maximize acceptance chances.

This comprehensive guide breaks down the complex SIGGRAPH/SIGGRAPH Asia technical paper review pipeline. It covers the single 6-point scoring scale, the multi-reviewer structure, the rebuttal process, committee decisions, and the dual-track (Journal vs. Conference) outcomes. Use this to understand where authors can exert influence and how to prepare submissions to meet the highest academic standards.

A comprehensive guide for drafting constrained author responses during major technical conference review periods (e.g., SOSP). Learn how to effectively correct factual errors and answer direct reviewer questions while strictly adhering to word limits and avoiding the introduction of new data or future work promises. Focus on precision and clarity for the Program Committee.

A comprehensive model detailing the rigorous evaluation process for submissions to STOC (Symposium on Theory of Computing). It covers the committee structure, the roles of program committee members and external subreviewers, the key evaluation axes (Correctness, Significance, Breadth, Novelty), the typical timeline, and strategic advice for authors on maximizing their leverage throughout the double-blind review process.