Skill UI

This guide helps researchers determine if their academic idea constitutes a genuine theoretical problem suitable for a specialized theory journal, rather than an empirical study or a simple literature review. It screens for conceptual advances, teaching users to distinguish between mere topics, data-driven findings, and deep theoretical gaps. Use this when you have an intuition or critique but are unsure of the theoretical depth or appropriate academic venue.

This skill guides users on transforming a sociological manuscript from a descriptive literature review into a sustained, argumentative theoretical piece. It ensures the writing follows rigorous academic standards, adheres to the ASA Style Guide, respects strict length caps (including citations and references), and shifts the focus from summarizing findings to advancing novel theoretical propositions.

Provides comprehensive guidelines for writing the "Related Work" and literature review sections for high-level academic publications. It emphasizes demonstrating the paper's unique contribution (delta) by organizing literature along technical threads, ensuring balanced coverage of domestic and international sources, and understanding the distinct requirements for regular papers versus specialized review commentary.

A guide for academic authors on structuring the literature review section for top-tier accounting journals. It emphasizes moving beyond simple 'gap-spotting' and instead focuses on 'problematization'—identifying and resolving core tensions or unexplained results within existing scholarly debates. This skill helps frame the contribution by positioning the research within a live, ongoing academic conversation.

This tool helps authors determine if their food science work is best suited for a critical review or trend analysis within the scope of this specific journal. It guides authors to focus on synthesizing existing literature, identifying research gaps, and charting future directions, rather than presenting original primary experimental data.

A comprehensive guide for structuring the 'Related Work' section in academic papers, especially in Computer Vision (CV). It teaches authors how to strategically position their research contribution by covering multiple literature shelves: vision methods, domain constraints, concurrent arXiv work, and prior art. This ensures the paper clearly defines a unique gap rather than merely listing citations, adhering to double-blind review standards.

This comprehensive router guides authors through the entire lifecycle of a rigorous development economics manuscript targeted at The World Bank Economic Review (WBER). It outlines the ideal sequence of specialized skills—from initial topic selection and literature positioning to establishing credible causal identification, managing robustness checks, and preparing the final submission package and rebuttal letter, ensuring the paper meets WBER's demanding standards.

This tool acts as the central orchestrator for academic manuscripts submitted to World Politics. It guides authors through the entire scholarly writing lifecycle, determining the correct article type (research vs. review), verifying the scope (must cross cases in comparative politics/IR), and routing the project to the appropriate specialized writing skills (e.g., theory building, data analysis, literature positioning). It ensures the work maintains a big, comparative, and international scope.

This guide provides a comprehensive framework for authors to articulate the unique and marginal contribution of their research within the highly specialized field of health economics. It teaches how to frame findings against canonical literature, identify specific gaps, and structure the argument to satisfy expert reviewers, ensuring the paper's novelty is clearly demonstrated.

This guide teaches how to structure the introduction of a scholarly paper to effectively position its unique contribution against the current academic frontier. Instead of writing a general literature review, it focuses on articulating the 'delta'—what the paper does that prior work could not—making the work highly visible to general-interest journal editors and referees.

Provides a comprehensive, step-by-step workflow for conducting rigorous literature reviews across academic, biomedical, and technical domains. It guides users through defining research questions (PICO), developing systematic search protocols, evidence logging, source screening, structured data extraction, and synthesizing findings to build high-quality, reproducible review reports.

This skill provides a comprehensive, reproducible rubric for evaluating scholarly and scientific work. It covers nine critical dimensions—including problem statement, methodology, data evidence, analysis rigor, and citation quality—making it ideal for reviewing research papers, grant proposals, literature reviews, and academic theses. Use it to provide structured, actionable, and professional feedback to enhance scholarly output.