Skill UI

This guide details the multi-stage academic review process, covering everything from initial Round 1 screening to deep Round 2 discussions, major revisions, and the role of the Ethics Review Board (ERB). It provides a structured walkthrough of the submission pipeline, helping authors understand the specific criteria and strategic actions needed at each stage to maximize their chances of acceptance.

This guide provides a rigorous framework for addressing reviewer comments on scientific manuscripts, especially for high-impact journals. It teaches how to triage feedback into actionable buckets (Do, Do-partial, Defend, Defer), handle specialized statistical reviewer critiques with re-analyses, and draft a professional, point-by-point response letter that enhances the paper's credibility and maximizes acceptance chances.

This skill simulates the rigorous peer review process used in top-tier AI and machine learning conferences (like NeurIPS). It helps users diagnose potential weaknesses in a submission regarding quality, clarity, significance, ethical compliance, and reproducibility. It guides the identification of decision-relevant issues that ACs and reviewers are likely to raise, helping authors strategically plan responses for revision.

This comprehensive guide details the strategy and structure required for authors responding to major or minor revisions (R&R) of academic manuscripts. It teaches how to systematically address multiple, often conflicting, interdisciplinary reviewer comments, focusing on point-by-point responses, conflict reconciliation, and enhancing the overall manuscript argument to maximize acceptance chances.

A comprehensive guide detailing the best practices for responding to Nature Geoscience referee reports and editor decisions. Learn how to structure a point-by-point reply, package your resubmission effectively, and make strategic decisions regarding appeals or retargeting.

This tool serves as a comprehensive workflow router for drafting high-impact Earth-system manuscripts targeting Nature Geoscience. It guides researchers through the entire publication cycle—from initial scope assessment and results framing to methods development, figure design, and critical revision. By diagnosing bottlenecks, it determines the optimal, sequential use of specialized academic skills.

A comprehensive guide for authors on navigating the rigorous process of academic conference revisions (e.g., NSDI). It details both pre-submission objection handling and executing the formal one-shot revision packet, emphasizing structured change memos, highlighted diffs, and maintaining a professional, non-defensive tone.

A comprehensive guide to interpreting the structural mechanics of large-scale, multi-deadline academic conferences (like NSDI). It details the difference between acceptance, one-shot revision, and rejection, explaining the strategic implications, associated bans, and the required scope for resubmission. Learn how to decode reviewers' feedback, identify critical baselines, and manage your research workflow across multiple cycles.

A comprehensive guide detailing how to properly categorize and structure supplementary content for major academic conference submissions, such as NSDI. It outlines the rules for the four distinct containers (Body, References, Appendices, Auxiliary Material), helping authors determine if evidence is required for judging a claim (Body), merely supportive (Appendix), or critical for online review (Auxiliary). It also covers best practices for revision packets.

A comprehensive guide detailing the cyclical workflow for major academic conferences (e.g., NSDI). It helps research teams strategically plan multi-year projects, managing multiple submission gates (Spring/Fall), revisions, and long waiting periods. Essential for structuring research efforts and avoiding common pitfalls like double-submission or missed deadlines.

This guide provides a structured approach for writing high-stakes author responses to academic paper reviews (like those in OOPSLA). It teaches authors how to move beyond simple rebuttals by framing every concern as an argument supporting a desired outcome (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject). Focus areas include quantifying feasibility, structuring the argument for committee skimming, and strategically shaping the scope of required revisions.

A comprehensive guide detailing the multi-stage, double-anonymous review process used at major academic conferences like OOPSLA. It explains the four possible outcomes (Accept, Minor/Major Revision, Reject), the mechanics of 'round-hopping' between submission volumes, and provides strategic advice on how to write author responses and manage revision expectations to maximize publication chances.