Skill UI

This guide helps researchers evaluate if their systems project meets the standards of top-tier conferences like SOSP. It details the critical 'SOSP shape test'—requiring an extractable Principle, a real Embodiment, and evidence at the claim's scale. It provides a routing table to recommend the most appropriate venue (e.g., OSDI, NSDI) based on the project's center of gravity.

A comprehensive resource for academics targeting the South China Journal of Economics. It provides deep insight into the journal's scope, preferred topics (e.g., Greater Bay Area, open economy, digital economy), rigorous submission standards (anonymous review, fee-free), and structural requirements. Use this guide to evaluate manuscript fit, optimize framing, and reduce the risk of desk rejection before official submission.

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.

This framework guides researchers to evaluate whether their current manuscript meets the high academic standards of top-tier comprehensive journals (e.g., Social Sciences in China). It moves beyond technical sophistication, focusing instead on the depth of intellectual contribution, originality of theory, and the macro-level significance of the research problem, preventing mis-submission and guiding revision strategy.

A comprehensive guide for authors submitting to SCI journals, detailing best practices for making research code and data available. It addresses how to proactively provide reproducible materials, structured documentation, and honest availability statements, even when formal 'Artifact Evaluation' badges are not mandatory. It helps authors improve the robustness and impact of their scientific findings.

A detailed guide for authors submitting theoretical computer science papers, outlining the required evidence objects (proofs, certificates, code) and best practices for preparing the public, full version of the work. It emphasizes structuring arguments to meet the standards of top-tier academic conferences like STOC.

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.

This guide helps researchers evaluate the scope and general significance of their theoretical computer science work. It introduces the 'breadth test' (corridor, lineage, technique) and a detailed routing map to advise whether the paper is best suited for a flagship, broad-scope venue like STOC, or a more specialized conference (e.g., SODA, ITCS, CCC). It provides a structured decision procedure for optimizing academic publication success.

This skill guides authors through the process of determining whether their economics or financial manuscript is a suitable fit for a specific academic journal. It evaluates the manuscript's core contribution, methodological rigor, structural compliance (e.g., word count, abstract length), and alignment with the journal's niche focus, acting as a comprehensive pre-submission checklist.

This comprehensive skill guides researchers through the submission process for prestigious international finance journals, specifically *Studies of International Finance*. It evaluates the manuscript's fit, checks for necessary global financial perspectives (like currency flows, regulation, and international institutions), and provides essential checklists on formatting, structure, and common rejection pitfalls.

This guide outlines the rigorous process for submitting and evaluating research artifacts for academic conferences (TACAS/ETAPS). It details the mandatory two-round evaluation system, covering tool-demonstration papers and general research case studies. Authors must package their work to achieve badges like Available, Functional, and Reusable, ensuring maximum reproducibility and environmental compatibility on a clean virtual machine.

This guide teaches authors how to structure and write a concise, evidence-based response during the academic rebuttal window (e.g., TACAS). It focuses on correcting factual misreadings, proving algorithm soundness, addressing evaluation fairness, and providing verifiable evidence, rather than rewriting the paper. It emphasizes brevity and targeted argumentation.