Skill UI

This guide provides a tactical framework for drafting high-stakes author responses (rebuttals) to peer reviews in top-tier academic conferences. It details how to triage reviewer comments (factual errors, questions, disputes), structure the argument within strict word limits (e.g., 800 words), and maintain a professional, evidence-based tone to maximize the paper's chances of acceptance or major revision.

This guide provides expert principles for designing and auditing system-level experiments in computer architecture (e.g., for ASPLOS-level conferences). It details the proper usage of various instruments—from real silicon and FPGAs to cycle-level simulators and analytical models—ensuring that every claim is matched to a valid, stated error model. It emphasizes workload selection, establishing strong baselines, performing rigorous ablation studies, and honestly reporting measurement noise and limitations to maintain scientific credibility.

This tool serves as the primary orchestrator for submitting manuscripts to the American Sociological Review (ASR). It guides users through the entire publication lifecycle, determining the optimal sub-skill based on the project's current stage, manuscript type (Article or Comment/Reply), and methodological approach (e.g., quantitative, ethnographic). It helps users confirm broad sociological significance and find the next critical step in the publishing process.

This guide provides a detailed methodology for crafting formal academic responses after conference reviews (e.g., ATC). It distinguishes between the concise, evidence-based rebuttal—used to correct factual misreadings or supply missing measurements—and the structured description of changes, which serves as a point-by-point contract proving all required revisions were implemented. The core principles emphasize precision, supporting claims with concrete evidence, and maintaining academic anonymity.

This guide outlines the rigorous standards for evaluating systems research, particularly for top-tier conferences like ATC. It provides detailed instructions on designing reproducible experiments, establishing fair baselines, utilizing realistic workloads, and reporting critical metrics such as tail latency, variance, and resource cost, ensuring the highest level of scientific rigor.

This guide helps authors articulate the explicit intellectual contribution of an accounting manuscript, moving beyond merely listing findings. It instructs users on how to frame the contribution based on the research tradition (archival evidence, experimental mechanism, or analytical insight) and connect these findings to tangible implications for accounting practice, standard-setting, and policy.

This guide details the comprehensive review process for Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR), covering double-anonymous peer review, the roles of the Subject Editor and Editor-in-Chief (EIC), and the formal appeals process. It helps authors understand how manuscripts are evaluated, interpret decision letters (Reject, R&R, Acceptance), and prioritize revision responses based on the Subject Editor's guidance.

This guide outlines best practices for designing and executing Computer Aided Verification (CAV) empirical evaluations. It emphasizes ensuring evidence matches claims by using standard, pinned benchmark sets, selecting fair baselines, respecting equal resource limits, and employing rigorous reporting methods like cactus and scatter plots to establish technical soundness and performance.

This guide helps researchers strategically determine the best academic venue (e.g., CAV, TACAS, FMCAD) and paper category (Regular, Tool, Application, Industrial) for their formal methods research. It provides detailed criteria for classifying contributions based on guaranteed techniques, usable tools, or real-world case studies, ensuring maximum impact and fit for the target conference.

This comprehensive guide assists researchers in determining the optimal top-tier academic venue (such as CCS, S&P, USENIX, NDSS, PETS) for their security research. It teaches how to rigorously classify the security contribution type, sharpen the threat model, and assess the technical fit of the work based on its nature (attack, defense, protocol, etc.).

This comprehensive guide details the mechanical conversion process for academic references, specifically moving from numbered, appearance-based citation styles (like Science/Nature) to the author–date style required by Cell Press. It covers in-text formatting, alphabetical reference list construction, full author list requirements, and common pitfalls when porting manuscripts between journals.

This comprehensive guide teaches the methodology for crafting professional, evidence-based rebuttal letters in response to demanding peer reviews (e.g., Cell). It instructs users on triaging reviewer comments into actionable categories (Do, Defend, etc.), prioritizing necessary new experiments based on impact and feasibility, and systematically addressing the core 'completeness' gaps demanded by top-tier journals, all while maintaining a respectful and academic tone.