Skill UI

A guide on how to position a research contribution for general social science journals. It emphasizes moving beyond simple literature reviews to actively engaging a live academic debate. Users learn how to connect niche findings to broader social science implications while maintaining scholarly rigor and adhering to strict word and citation limits.

This guide provides a comprehensive framework for authors responding to peer reviews in major NLP/IR conferences. It covers strategies for active rebuttal periods, pre-emptive revisions when no window exists, and planning resubmissions after rejection. Key advice includes technical rebuttal tactics (e.g., addressing baselines, significance testing), maintaining professional tone, and efficiently using existing computational evidence to maximize acceptance chances.

Provides detailed strategies for authors responding to peer reviews in top-tier academic conferences like SIGMOD. It covers the distinct rules for the mid-round feedback phase and the formal revision letter, emphasizing structured responses, mandatory change highlighting, maintaining anonymity, and strategic content budgeting.

This guide teaches researchers how to move beyond basic literature reviews by positioning their work within a specific, ongoing scholarly debate. It provides a framework to identify the core scholarly 'conversation,' pinpoint the theoretical gap (mechanism or tension), and articulate a novel move that advances the field's understanding, crucial for high-impact academic journal submissions.

This guide outlines the rigorous standards and methodologies for qualitative social science research (e.g., ethnography, in-depth interviews, case studies, grounded theory). It emphasizes moving beyond mere story-telling to concept building, ensuring methodological rigor, coding transparency, and theoretical dialogue to meet high academic standards.

This resource models the complex, multi-stage review process for top-tier academic conferences, such as SOSP. It details the journey of a paper from initial submission through staged reviews, author rebuttal, and the final live committee decision. It helps users understand the structural dynamics of scholarly evaluation and how to strategically respond to reviewers' critiques.

A comprehensive guide for authors responding to external academic reviews (rebuttal) for top-tier journals. It outlines the precise structure, professional strategy, and tone required to defend propositions, deepen theoretical dialogue, and systematically revise a manuscript point-by-point, ensuring the response is rigorous and highly professional.

This skill activates 'Steno Mode,' providing highly compressed, expert-level responses by eliminating filler words and superfluous tokens (up to 40% reduction). It maintains absolute technical precision, making it ideal for technical communications like code reviews, debugging Q&A, and architecture summaries. Users can select four defined levels (lite, brief, court, machine) to control the density, with exactness always taking top priority.

A comprehensive guide for authors navigating the submission process for Trends in Cognitive Sciences (TiCS). This resource details the journal's specific requirements for reviews, opinions, and conceptual frameworks, including its highly invited nature, required critical synthesis, and unique structural conventions (e.g., Box panels). Use this to assess the fit of your work before submission.

This guide provides a strategic framework for drafting author responses to challenging peer reviews in academic conferences. It teaches authors how to structure replies by addressing four key axes (Correctness, Novelty, Backing, Clarity), ensuring technical precision, maintaining anonymity, and framing commitments that survive the subsequent Area Chair (AC) discussion phase.

This guide provides comprehensive instructions for authors responding to peer reviews and engaging with a shepherd during major security symposium cycles (like USENIX Security). It details the technical mechanics of writing effective rebuttals, addressing compliance gaps (e.g., ethics/disclosure), and managing limited revisions during the post-acceptance shepherding phase.

This guide provides a comprehensive framework for authors responding to major conference reviews (like IEEE VIS). It details the distinct strategies for both first-round rebuttals and mandatory second-round revisions (conditional accept). Learn how to structure summaries of changes, address technical critiques, maintain anonymity, and turn reviewer skepticism into acceptance.