Skill UI

This skill guides researchers through the rigorous process of evaluating if their public administration project meets the standards of high-impact academic journals like the Public Administration Review (PAR). It ensures the work not only advances scholarly theory but also delivers actionable, credible 'evidence for practice' for real-world public managers and policymakers. Essential for refining scope and target venue.

A detailed guide for authors handling major revisions (R&R) for quantitative economics papers. It structures the entire process, from decoding the coeditor's priorities and classifying referee demands (fundamental, clarification, disagreement), to executing necessary new analyses and drafting a professional, evidence-based response letter that maintains reproducibility and rigor.

This comprehensive guide details the entire editorial review process for quantitative economics publications, covering stages from initial desk screening through to pre-acceptance reproducibility checks. It provides critical insights into expected timelines (4-5 months), desk-reject risks, the Econometrica transfer option, and mandatory data/code preparation requirements. It is designed to set clear professional expectations for authors throughout the academic publishing cycle.

A structured guide for authors responding to major revisions or reject-and-resubmit decisions from high-stakes academic journals like QJE. This process outlines a rigorous protocol for triaging reviewer comments, prioritizing editor mandates, structuring the point-by-point response letter, and ensuring the manuscript is fully updated before submission. It focuses on maintaining a professional, gracious, and evidence-based tone.

A comprehensive war-gaming guide designed for authors preparing manuscripts for top-tier journals, such as QJE. It teaches how to anticipate hostile referee objections across different academic archetypes (e.g., identification hawks, 'so what?' skeptics) and proactively address them—both fundamentally and for robustness—before submission. This process stress-tests the paper's core claims, structure, and arguments, significantly boosting the chances of passing the initial desk-screen.

This router guides the author through the complex, multi-stage process of submitting a top-tier economics manuscript to the Quarterly Journal of Economics (QJE). It diagnoses the current bottleneck—whether it's conceptual framing, causal identification, robustness checks, or writing style—and directs the user to the appropriate specialized skill stage (e.g., literature positioning, identifying, rebuttal). It does not replace specialized skills but ensures optimal workflow sequencing.

A comprehensive guide to the rigorous academic peer review process, exemplified by top-tier Recommender Systems conferences (RecSys). It details the double-blind review mechanics, key evaluation criteria (novelty, validity, reproducibility), the critical rebuttal phase, and the requirements for final publication in ACM Digital Library. Essential for researchers and students aiming to improve academic submission quality.

This guide helps researchers determine if their project's core contribution is genuinely centered on recommender systems. It provides a structured fit test to route the work to the most appropriate top-tier venue (RecSys, SIGIR, KDD, etc.) and select the correct conference track before starting the writing process.

Provides a comprehensive guide to the Review of Economic Dynamics (RED) editorial process, detailing the suitability screen, single-anonymized refereeing model, and fast-review expectations. It guides authors on preparation, planning timelines, and common pitfalls to ensure a smooth submission experience.

Guides authors through the rigorous, end-to-end lifecycle of submitting a paper to the Review of Economic Dynamics (RED). It acts as an orchestration checklist, covering critical stages from initial scope definition and quantitative modeling to data archiving, manuscript formatting, fee payment, and handling revisions. It ensures authors maintain methodological rigor and code-first discipline throughout the entire academic publishing process.

A specialized tool designed to help academic researchers evaluate the suitability of their manuscripts for the 'Research and Development Management' journal. It analyzes the paper's fit, theoretical framing, structural requirements, and potential weaknesses against the journal's focus on enterprise-level innovation mechanisms, knowledge management, and academic rigor. It simulates the journal's editorial review process.

A comprehensive guide for drafting a structured, point-by-point rebuttal letter in response to major/minor research policy revisions. It teaches how to synthesize conflicting referee comments into a coherent plan, defend core innovation claims with evidence, and manage the handling editor's expectations, ensuring the original contribution is protected throughout the revision process.