Skill UI

This comprehensive guide assists researchers in ensuring their manuscripts meet stringent ethical and research integrity standards required by top-tier journals. It covers critical areas such as ethics committee approval, informed consent, declarations of interest, funder roles, data sharing, and SAGER guidelines, helping authors improve submission readiness.

A comprehensive guide for microarchitecture researchers on achieving rigorous scientific reproducibility. It mandates tracking every critical artifact—including simulator commits, workload traces, power/area models, and RTL toolchains—and compiling them into a single run manifest, ensuring any reported result can be verified by a third party.

This skill guides researchers in refining broad philosophical topics into sharply focused, significant, and defensible theses. It teaches the rigorous process of ensuring a proposed project meets high academic standards—specifically requiring a clear, debatable claim, relevance to live debates, and scope manageable within a defined length. Use this to pressure-test your ideas before committing to writing.

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.

This guide details the rigorous process for packaging research artifacts in mobile communications for academic evaluation committees (AEC). It emphasizes creating a hardware-optional path, defining claims (badges), and ensuring reproducibility through smoke runs, recorded replay paths, and permanent DOI-backed archiving, allowing evaluation even without specialized lab equipment.

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.

A comprehensive guide for submitting research artifacts to the MobiSys Artifact Evaluation Committee (AEC). It details the process for achieving three independent ACM badges (Available, Functional, Results Reproduced). Emphasis is placed on creating fully reproducible, script-first workflows, designing for hardware-optional environments, and maintaining strict anonymity during review.

This comprehensive guide provides a strategic framework for drafting author responses in academic conference review cycles (e.g., NAACL ARR). It teaches authors how to prioritize reviewer objections based on their downstream impact, structure evidence using coordinates, maintain professional tone, and craft a defensible "frozen record" for the final committee review, maximizing acceptance chances.

This guide deconstructs the two-stage review and decision-making process for NAACL (and similar ACL venues). It details the division of labor between the initial ARR review phase and the final program committee commitment stage, offering strategic advice on how authors can optimize their submissions and responses at each point.

Provides a comprehensive, detailed audit checklist for authors submitting papers intended for NAACL. This guide walks through the complex ACL Rolling Review (ARR) submission cycle, ensuring the manuscript passes all mandatory technical gates—such as anonymity checks, format compliance, structural requirements, and accurate declaration—before the final conference commitment. Essential for navigating the unique timeline and rigorous standards of top NLP conferences.

This comprehensive guide provides a structured project management workflow for academic research targeting the NAACL conference. It addresses the unique challenge of NAACL's irregular calendar (skipped years) by providing a detailed backward planning timeline, managing milestones (data freeze, paper freeze, ARR upload), and implementing a critical decision tree for committing, waiting, or rerouting submissions when conference windows shift.

This guide provides a structured approach for writing high-stakes author responses to academic paper reviews (like those in OOPSLA). It teaches authors how to move beyond simple rebuttals by framing every concern as an argument supporting a desired outcome (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject). Focus areas include quantifying feasibility, structuring the argument for committee skimming, and strategically shaping the scope of required revisions.