Skill UI

A comprehensive guide for authors detailing the entire academic submission lifecycle for Research Policy (RP). It covers the double-blind review process, the role of handling editors, how desk rejects are assessed (scope vs. contribution), and strategies for planning major and minor revisions. This resource helps authors set realistic expectations and plan their next steps before drafting the formal response letter.

A comprehensive guide for drafting a response-to-referees letter and revision plan after receiving a major academic decision (R&R or reject-and-resubmit) from top-tier journals like REStat. It teaches the strategy of structuring evidence-based rebuttals, prioritizing core identification/measurement concerns, and handling conflicting referee demands to maximize acceptance chances. Note: This skill guides writing strategy, not new analysis.

A comprehensive guide for tackling a 'revise-and-resubmit' academic review (R&R). This process details how to substantively resolve critical, first-order concerns—such as identification threats, construct measurement, or model assumptions—before drafting the letter. It emphasizes rigorous analysis, structured point-by-point responses, maintaining manuscript consistency, and preserving anonymity for resubmission.

This comprehensive guide details the strategy for drafting a compelling rebuttal letter and revision plan following rigorous peer review (R&R). It teaches authors how to structure point-by-point responses, differentiate between major concerns and suggestions, adhere to strict journal constraints (e.g., page caps, data consistency), and ensure all revisions are presented with verifiable evidence.

This guide details the comprehensive policy for preparing research replication packages for academic journals, especially in finance. It covers structuring code, handling proprietary data (pseudo-datasets, logs), drafting Data Availability Statements, and ensuring full traceability of results for successful publication.

This guide provides a highly strategic protocol for drafting the single-page rebuttal memo required for top-tier academic conferences, such as RSS. It teaches authors how to tailor their response for the Area Chair (AC), focusing on maximum impact with minimal words. Key strategies include prioritizing critical objections, citing evidence using coordinates (e.g., Table 3, row 4), and making controlled scope concessions rather than re-running experiments or thanking reviewers extensively. This maximizes the chances of influencing the final review decision.

This comprehensive tool guides researchers in drafting rigorous, point-by-point responses to referee reports (R&R). It ensures that every comment is systematically addressed, classifying fixes and providing structured revisions. Critically, it mandates that all substantive fixes must be backed by real, reproducible re-runs, citing specific numbers generated via an execution bridge to maintain scientific rigor.

This toolkit guides the entire academic publishing lifecycle, acting as a central router across multiple venues. It sequences critical steps—from selecting the ideal target journal (`rt-journal-match`) through data execution, submission readiness checks, simulated referee review, point-by-point rebuttal drafting, and generating the final replication package. It provides a structured, end-to-end process for researchers submitting complex manuscripts.

Provides comprehensive guidelines for authors preparing manuscripts for high-level academic publication, focusing specifically on data availability and transparency. It guides users through drafting the required data availability statement, depositing data and code in public repositories (e.g., OSF, Zenodo), and methods for documenting restricted or qualitative sources to ensure maximum reproducibility and ethical compliance.

This comprehensive guide outlines the structured process for authors responding to peer review feedback for top-tier academic conferences (e.g., SIGCOMM). It critically distinguishes between drafting a concise, decision-focused rebuttal and executing a formal, contract-bound one-shot revision. It provides strict guidelines on building the required submission packet, including point-by-point responses, change-marked manuscripts, and evidence anchoring, ensuring submissions meet high academic standards.

This guide provides a comprehensive framework for drafting a professional and persuasive response letter to academic journal reviewers following a major or minor revision (R&R). It details the precise structure, from addressing the editor to point-by-point rebuttals, emphasizing how to tackle core concerns like endogeneity and theoretical contribution with evidence, not just rhetoric.

A comprehensive guide for drafting the critical author response (rebuttal) for the SoCC conference. Since there is no major revision round, this single, high-stakes turn must persuasively address concerns from both systems and data/measurement reviewers. It emphasizes correcting factual errors, supplying missing numbers (like tail latency and cost), and maintaining strict dual anonymity.