Skill UI

A comprehensive guide for authors preparing a rebuttal and response letter after a major journal revision (e.g., R&R). It structures the response to referees and editors, emphasizing the policy contribution and addressing every comment point-by-point. The guide stresses the need for evidence-led arguments, strengthening the welfare/policy reading, and ensuring reproducibility standards are met to successfully resubmit high-stakes academic research.

A comprehensive strategy guide for authors submitting policy-evaluation papers to top economics journals. It details how expert referees evaluate manuscripts, focusing on four critical areas: policy interest, causal credibility, welfare reading, and robustness. This tool helps authors proactively anticipate and strengthen potential weaknesses before submission or during revision, significantly increasing the paper's chances of acceptance.

This comprehensive guide outlines the critical steps authors must take after their manuscript has been accepted by a journal. It guides users through the transition from academic writing to scientific publishing quality control, covering copyright agreements, mandatory metadata filling (e.g., funding, affiliations), rigorous formatting checks (references, formulas, figures), and the multi-stage proofreading (proofsheet) process to ensure zero-defect publication.

Provides comprehensive guidelines for executing and reporting findings in complex, multi-disciplinary academic manuscripts, particularly in anthropology. It emphasizes grounding every claim in specific evidence (fieldnotes, artifacts, measurements), accounting for alternative readings, and maintaining ethical care for sources and participants. Essential for mixed-methods and expert anonymous review processes.

A comprehensive guide for strengthening and defending the methodological rigor of academic manuscripts across various anthropological subfields (ethnography, archaeology, biological, etc.). It instructs users on how to justify sampling, interpretative leaps, ethical considerations, and how to preemptively address rival readings and potential disconfirmations, ensuring the argument is robustly connected to evidence.

This guide details the complete post-delivery review cycle for invited Annual Reviews of Economics (ARE) articles. It sets clear expectations regarding the annual publication cadence, the high standards for accuracy, rigor, and balance, and outlines the stages from committee review through final production. It is essential reading for authors needing to understand the non-rolling, annual nature of the publication timeline.

A comprehensive guide detailing the unique commissioning process for submitting to Annual Review of Psychology (ARPsych). It clarifies the difference between unsolicited submissions and invited roles, providing playbooks for both suggesting a new topic/author lineup and managing the scope and contributions once an invitation is secured. Essential reading for researchers aiming to publish in a commissioned volume.

This guide provides a rigorous methodology for systematically gathering, reading, and synthesizing vast amounts of sociological research for comprehensive academic reviews. It focuses on ensuring comprehensive coverage across all methodological modes (quantitative, qualitative, computational, and theoretical), allowing users to build a robust evidence corpus and synthesis matrix rather than merely summarizing individual studies.

This skill guides the transformation of visual observations and documentary evidence into a sustained, contestable academic thesis, suitable for high-level scholarly publication. It teaches how to explicitly state a claim (the thesis), define its scholarly stakes, and rigorously warrant every interpretive leap using evidence chains and anticipating counter-readings. Use this when a draft is descriptive but lacks a clear, disputed argument.

A comprehensive guide detailing the complete academic review pipeline for IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering (ASE) submissions. It explains unique stages like the early-rejection gate, the criteria-bound revision process, and the difference between ASE's cycle and those of peer conferences (e.g., ICSE, FSE). Essential reading for authors aiming to submit high-quality research in automatic software engineering.

This guide outlines the rigorous, multi-stage workflow required to convert a conference acceptance or major revision into a final, publishable ACM-formatted paper. It covers critical steps including de-anonymization (restoring author details and citations), completing ACM rights forms, integrating archived artifacts, and managing the strict six-week timeline. Essential reading for authors ensuring their work meets high-quality publishing standards.

This guide provides a detailed methodology for crafting formal academic responses after conference reviews (e.g., ATC). It distinguishes between the concise, evidence-based rebuttal—used to correct factual misreadings or supply missing measurements—and the structured description of changes, which serves as a point-by-point contract proving all required revisions were implemented. The core principles emphasize precision, supporting claims with concrete evidence, and maintaining academic anonymity.