Skill UI

A comprehensive guide for computer science authors targeting high-performance parallel and distributed computing venues like HPDC. It assists in conference fit evaluation, manuscript re-framing (from journal/arXiv to conference narrative), identifying evidence gaps, and structuring contributions for optimal review success in cloud/HPC systems and distributed settings. Ideal for determining submission strategy.

This guide details the process of packaging and evaluating academic artifacts for ACM CCS conferences. It outlines the criteria for earning specific ACM badges (e.g., Functional, Reusable, Results Reproduced) by ensuring that supporting evidence—such as exploits, defenses, and measurement pipelines—is turnkey, reproducible, and rigorously documented for the review committee. It covers best practices for artifact planning, handling sensitive material, and justifying any withheld components.

A detailed model of the ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) research manuscript review process. This guide explains the double-blind, TPC-driven, and single-shot nature of the evaluation, emphasizing the critical balance between genuine novelty and measured Quality-of-Results (QoR). It outlines the high standards for evidence fairness, benchmark credibility, and ablation studies required for acceptance, differentiating DAC's approach from architecture and software venues.

This guide provides comprehensive standards for designing, auditing, and reporting empirical evaluations in database systems research. It emphasizes the principle that evidence must proportionally match the claim, requiring the use of real-world workloads, fair and tuned baselines, thorough measurement of variance and state (warm/cold), and fully reproducible evaluation harnesses. It also outlines the higher bar for 'Experiments & Analysis' papers.

This comprehensive guide provides best practices for packaging supplemental materials and artifacts for top-tier academic conferences like ICDE. It instructs authors on how to build a robust, reproducible evidence chain, including parameterized workload generators, configuration scripts, and detailed logs. The goal is to ensure that reviewers can quickly and accurately validate all performance claims and technical contributions, making the work 'turnkey' and verifiable.

A comprehensive methodology guide for designing and auditing empirical studies in software engineering, specifically focused on maintenance, evolution, and change impact. It outlines best practices for ensuring evidence is proportional to the claim, managing data provenance (SHAs, criteria), handling statistical confounds (survivorship, effect sizes), and integrating rigorous LLM evaluation protocols.

Provides comprehensive guidelines for conducting rigorous networking evaluations, particularly for top-tier conferences. It mandates that every networking claim—be it optimality, performance improvement, or real-world behavior—must be matched with specific, verifiable evidence. This includes rigorous mathematical proof, seeded simulation results, or real-traffic testbed measurements. The guide emphasizes stating assumptions, using fair baselines, and ensuring statistical reproducibility across all studies.

A comprehensive guide for structuring the evidence bundle required for robotics research submissions. It details the critical components—including hardware ledgers, time-stamped logs, configuration files, code, and data—necessary to ensure that scientific claims are fully auditable and reproducible, addressing the needs of skeptical reviewers.

Provides comprehensive guidelines for achieving high reproducibility and verifiability in academic research submissions, particularly for software analysis, fuzzing, and bug finding. It details the necessity of pinning substrates (like benchmark versions and program SHAs), fixing stochastic parameters (seeds and budgets), and mapping every empirical claim to verifiable evidence to meet stringent academic evaluation criteria.

This comprehensive guide outlines best practices for designing rigorous and convincing technical evaluations for networked systems. It structures the process by requiring experiments to answer specific questions, advising authors to climb the evidence ladder from synthetic benchmarks to real-world deployment. Key concepts include reporting tail latencies (p99), establishing strong baselines, and maintaining meticulous provenance records to ensure reproducibility.

This guide provides comprehensive best practices for designing and auditing cloud system evaluations, particularly for academic submissions. It mandates that claims must be supported by measured evidence from real or realistic deployments, moving beyond simple simulations. Key metrics emphasized include tail latency (p99), operational cost modeling, and verifiable behavior under scale and multi-tenancy.

A comprehensive guide detailing how to package and present research artifacts—including code, hardware designs, and datasets—for major academic conferences. It outlines best practices for both initial review-time evidence and long-term public reuse, ensuring reproducibility and maximizing the chances of adoption by future builders.