Skill UI

A comprehensive guide for authors handling the conditional acceptance stage of POPL. It details the two-gate process: first, satisfying the mandatory committee revisions, and second, de-anonymizing and formatting the paper for the official PACMPL journal issue. Covers metadata management, ORCIDs, open access rights, and logistical planning for the final conference talk.

This guide details the complete academic lifecycle for a paper submitted to the POPL conference, culminating in a journal issue. It covers all critical stages: double-blind review, handling author responses, navigating conditional acceptance, mandatory revisions, and understanding how academic rigor (correctness, novelty, significance) is assessed by the committee. Essential reading for researchers.

A comprehensive deep dive into the PPoPP conference review pipeline. This guide models the single-round, double-blind review process, detailing how submissions are evaluated by the Program Committee and External Review Committee. It covers critical aspects such as the author response rebuttal, automatic poster consideration, and the specific technical axes reviewers prioritize (e.g., scalability, concurrency correctness, baseline honesty) for parallel programming research.

A comprehensive guide and fit test designed to help researchers assess whether their empirical psychology project meets the high standards of top-tier journals like Psychological Science. It evaluates key criteria including broad impact, statistical robustness, open science readiness (preregistration/data sharing), and adherence to strict format limits. Use this skill to pressure-test your idea before committing resources to data collection or analysis, guiding you toward the optimal manuscript type (e.g., Research Article vs. Registered Report).

Provides a structured framework for vetting potential review topics for high-impact educational journals. It guides researchers through four critical fit tests—educational importance, literature maturity, current need for synthesis, and scope tractability—before committing to a full search or writing a protocol, ensuring the proposal genuinely advances academic understanding.

This specialized tool analyzes Git diffs against a stated development intent to detect scope creep. It identifies overly broad pull requests, unrelated files, dependency additions, public API renames, or configuration changes. It guides users on whether changes should be kept, split into separate commits, or if the connection requires explicit justification, ensuring clean and focused code merges.

This guide details the strategic process for writing a technical rebuttal (e.g., for SIGGRAPH), focusing on correcting factual errors and answering specific reviewer questions under strict constraints (e.g., 1000 words, text-only). It also outlines the required steps for the second-stage revision after conditional acceptance, ensuring authors address all committee requirements.

This comprehensive guide breaks down the complex SIGGRAPH/SIGGRAPH Asia technical paper review pipeline. It covers the single 6-point scoring scale, the multi-reviewer structure, the rebuttal process, committee decisions, and the dual-track (Journal vs. Conference) outcomes. Use this to understand where authors can exert influence and how to prepare submissions to meet the highest academic standards.

This skill assists researchers in strategically positioning their computer graphics and visualization research. It evaluates whether a contribution is truly "graphics-shaped" (demanding visual results and advancing graphics axes) and recommends the optimal venue (e.g., SIGGRAPH, CVPR, CHI, EGSR) and submission track (Dual-track or Journal-only) based on the nature and maturity of the work. It provides a crucial, high-leverage decision framework before committing to a submission.

A comprehensive guide for drafting constrained author responses during major technical conference review periods (e.g., SOSP). Learn how to effectively correct factual errors and answer direct reviewer questions while strictly adhering to word limits and avoiding the introduction of new data or future work promises. Focus on precision and clarity for the Program Committee.

This resource models the complex, multi-stage review process for top-tier academic conferences, such as SOSP. It details the journey of a paper from initial submission through staged reviews, author rebuttal, and the final live committee decision. It helps users understand the structural dynamics of scholarly evaluation and how to strategically respond to reviewers' critiques.

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.