Skill UI

A comprehensive guide for researchers responding to 'Revise and Resubmit' (R&R) decisions, particularly in Comparative Political Studies. It provides a structured framework for drafting the response letter, ensuring every point from reviewers and editors is addressed point-by-point. Focus areas include strengthening comparative leverage, addressing rival explanations, and maintaining professional, evidence-based argumentation.

A comprehensive guide for authors on drafting strategic, anonymous rebuttals and discussion replies for top-tier Machine Learning conferences like ICML. Learn how to triage reviewer objections by focusing on soundness, originality, significance, clarity, ethics, and reproducibility, adhering strictly to double-blind review constraints and maximizing impact in limited discussion rounds.

A comprehensive guide to understanding the peer review process for top-tier machine learning conferences like ICML. It helps authors and researchers diagnose potential decision issues, analyze reviewer critiques along dimensions (e.g., soundness, originality), and formulate strategic responses to maximize acceptance chances. Covers OpenReview features, AC meta-review synthesis, and ethical policy considerations.

This guide provides a structured methodology for handling reviewer comments across various academic publishing channels, including camera-ready revisions, formal journal response letters, and resubmission memos. It teaches researchers how to move beyond simple rebuttal by focusing on technical honesty, evidence-based arguments, and disciplined revision processes required by top conferences (ICRA/IROS) and journals (RA-L).

A comprehensive guide for structuring author responses to major academic conference reviews (e.g., ICSE). It distinguishes between the initial 'author response' and the structured 'Major Revision' letter. Learn how to address specific review criteria (Novelty, Rigor, Relevance, Verifiability) using a technical, neutral 'ledger' format, ensuring every claim is evidence-based and professionally presented.

This guide provides a strategic framework for authors responding to rigorous peer reviews in high-stakes academic venues. It details how to manage both short-term rebuttals and full revision submissions, covering objection triage (misreading, evidence gaps, adaptive attacks), precise scope definitions, and the formal documentation required for ethics and methodology. Learn to structure your response to maximize acceptance probability.

A comprehensive project management skill designed for authors planning submissions to major AI conferences (like IJCAI). This guide outlines the critical milestones, dependencies, and risk checkpoints, guiding the team from initial venue fit through abstract registration, full-paper upload, review responses, and final presentation artifact release. It ensures all deadlines and author requirements are met to maximize acceptance chances.

A comprehensive guide for drafting professional and evidence-based rebuttal letters following major or minor revisions in high-level computing journals. This skill helps authors structure point-by-point responses, address computational objections with re-run evidence, and strategically manage disagreements while maintaining a professional tone.

A comprehensive guide for authors preparing rebuttals to multiple reviewers at INTERSPEECH. It provides strategic advice on tailoring responses to diverse expert profiles (e.g., speech engineers vs. scientists), managing the 4-page constraint, maintaining anonymity, and structuring responses to maximize impact on the meta-reviewer. Essential for authors navigating the competitive academic publication process.

This guide provides a comprehensive strategy for responding to academic conference reviews, particularly those with no formal rebuttal period (like IROS). It details the three key channels of response: pre-submission objection handling, integrating meta-review feedback into the camera-ready manuscript, and drafting formal response letters or resubmission memos. It emphasizes maintaining scope, transparency, and evidence integrity throughout the process.

A comprehensive guide for planning and drafting responses to major revisions (R&R) in Information Systems research. It teaches systematic prioritization, focusing first on the Senior Editor's concerns, addressing genre-specific reviewer critiques (e.g., proofs, identification, evaluation), and structuring the response using an electronic companion for maximum impact.

This guide provides a comprehensive framework for drafting authoritative author responses during academic conference reviews (e.g., ISSTA). It covers triage strategies, distinguishing between factual corrections and promised changes, and structuring a Major-Revision ledger. Learn how to address reviewer concerns strategically, maintain anonymity, and anchor all claims to evidence for maximizing acceptance chances.