Skill UI

A comprehensive guide for reporting data analysis in Organization Studies manuscripts. It mandates rigorous analytic transparency by detailing how raw data transitions into theoretical claims. Covers best practices for qualitative coding (data-to-theory ladder), process modeling, and advanced quantitative robustness checks, ensuring the reader can audit the entire inference process.

A comprehensive guide to the Operations Research (OR) academic publishing review process. This guide explains the departmental editorial routing, the soft double-anonymous review model, and how to interpret complex decision letters (Reject, Major/Minor Revision, Accept). It details the roles of Area and Associate Editors, and provides actionable strategies for authors to strengthen their technical contributions and respond effectively to reviewer feedback.

A comprehensive guide for formulating rigorous Operations Research (OR) manuscripts. It covers defining mathematical models (optimization, stochastic, simulation), structuring claims (theorems, propositions), and rigorously justifying assumptions. Essential for transforming practical problems into mathematically provable, publication-ready academic work.

This guide provides a detailed model of the PerCom conference review process, covering double-blind review, the three-TPC-member evaluation model, the early-rejection gate, and the bounded rebuttal stage. It clarifies how authors should structure their submissions to succeed in this single-round, non-revisionary academic environment, differentiating it sharply from journal cycles.

This comprehensive guide helps researchers decide the optimal venue for their ubiquitous computing (Ubicomp) paper. It provides detailed criteria for distinguishing contributions—such as human-centricity, core insight, and system focus—and advises on routing between major conferences (PerCom, MobiCom, SenSys) and journals (UbiComp/IMWUT) based on contribution shape and publication model.

A detailed guide for authors submitting review essays to highly selective journals, outlining the double-anonymous review model. It teaches authors how to anticipate expert critiques—moving beyond simple summaries to demonstrate critical intervention, conceptual clarity, and forward contribution. Covers desk-reject triggers and best practices for pre-submission stress-testing.

A comprehensive preflight checklist for authors submitting to academic journals, specifically modeled after the requirements for Progress in Human Geography (PiHG) via SAGE Track. It guides users through critical steps, including maintaining double-anonymity, confirming the genre (review article vs. empirical study), adhering to strict word counts (~8,000 words), and following specific style guides (SAGE Harvard). Use this tool immediately before the final upload to ensure submission compliance.

A crucial guide for authors preparing for PODC (Proofs venue). It corrects the common misconception that runnable artifacts or badges are required. Instead, it redirects focus to the three core areas of evaluation: ensuring proof completeness, establishing model rigor by declaring all assumptions, and maintaining transparency for optional simulations.

This guide outlines the rigorous standards for presenting 'evidence' in highly theoretical computing venues. It emphasizes that results must be supported by deep mathematical proofs, establishing matching upper and lower bounds (tightness), and meticulously auditing all underlying model assumptions (e.g., timing, failure modes). It shifts focus from empirical benchmarks to formal correctness.

A comprehensive guide for positioning research in distributed-computing theory, specifically for conferences like PODC. It details how to move beyond topic listings to defining a precise 'delta' by comparing models, bounds, and costs against prior art. Crucial advice includes distinguishing between different synchrony models, fault tolerances, and handling self-citation in double-blind reviews.

This guide provides guidelines for ensuring that academic proofs are independently verifiable, particularly for proofs-focused conferences. It covers creating self-contained proof appendices, meticulously defining all underlying assumptions in a 'model box' contract, and ensuring perfect synchronization between the short conference proceedings and the full arXiv version.

This guide details the rigorous and single-shot review process for ACM's Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). Unlike venues with major revision rounds, PODC focuses entirely on the strength of the proof, the significance of the result, and the honesty of the model. It outlines the criteria (correctness, novelty, tightness) and emphasizes that all necessary work must be completed pre-submission, as there are no post-acceptance revision cycles.