Skill UI

A comprehensive guide for authors preparing and auditing submissions for SODA (ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms). Covers critical guidelines including the no-page-limit full version requirement, strict formatting rules (11pt, single column), lightweight double-blind rules, HotCRP mechanics, and an hour-by-hour checklist for the final submission window.

This guide provides expert advice on structuring and writing the 'Related Work' section for top-tier systems conferences (like SOSP/OSDI). It emphasizes shifting from simple citation lists to structural positioning, requiring authors to identify precise differences (e.g., assumption, mechanism, guarantee) between their work and existing research. It also covers academic lineage tracing, double-blind citation rules, and handling concurrent work.

This guide provides a comprehensive understanding of how top-tier academic journals, like Social Psychology Quarterly, evaluate manuscripts. It covers critical areas such as maintaining proper author blinding, ensuring the paper fits within specific theoretical traditions (e.g., sociological social psychology), and understanding the decision patterns (reject, revise, accept). Use this to pre-empt failure modes and strategically shape your research paper for optimal chances of publication.

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.

A comprehensive guide detailing the complex submission and evaluation pipeline for TACAS (Tools and Algorithms for Scientific Applications). It models key features such as category-specific blind review, the mandatory parallel artifact evaluation for tool papers, and the single-round conference decision-making process, helping authors strategically prepare their submissions.

A comprehensive pre-submission checklist for authors preparing papers for TACAS/ETAPS. It guides users through selecting the correct paper category (research, tool, case-study), adhering to specific Springer LNCS page limits, managing double-blind vs. single-blind review rules, and correctly staging mandatory tool artifacts to ensure acceptance readiness.

This comprehensive guide details the rigorous review process used by top academic journals. It explains the tiered editor structure, the critical double-blind review model, and how to interpret various decision letters (desk reject, reject, revise and resubmit). It helps authors set realistic expectations, understand professional academic integrity rules, and prepare best practices for manuscript submission.

A comprehensive preflight checklist designed for submitting academic manuscripts to major journals. It ensures strict compliance with publishing standards, covering double-blind anonymization, required AI disclosure statements, ORCID linking, adherence to specific formatting rules (e.g., Chicago style, page limits), and data authenticity requirements for research integrity.

This skill polishes the prose and style of academic accounting manuscripts for submission to top-tier journals like The Accounting Review (TAR). It enforces strict house conventions, including adherence to the Chicago Manual of Style, structuring the abstract (max 150 words), ensuring findings are front-loaded, and maintaining rigorous author anonymization throughout the text for double-blind review.

A comprehensive guide for historical scholars to evaluate their manuscript's suitability for The American Historical Review (AHR). It helps authors gauge if their historical argument has sufficient significance beyond a specialized subfield, covering historiographical stakes, deep primary source integration, and adherence to academic norms (Chicago style, double-blind review).

This skill guides authors on whether their British, European, or world history manuscript is appropriate for The English Historical Review (EHR). It details the journal's high standards for archival and empirical rigor, primary source command, historiographical placement, and formatting requirements (Chicago house style, double-blind review). Use this to check fit, refine arguments, and avoid common academic pitfalls.

This guide details the methodology for packaging scientific artifacts (code, solvers, data, logs) for machine learning submissions. It focuses on creating double-blind, self-contained ZIP archives that allow reviewers to independently and quickly verify complex probabilistic claims, even under strict time constraints. It covers best practices for anonymity, structured README generation, and handling data/licensing.