Skill UI

Provides a comprehensive guide for writing high-quality academic rebuttal letters and revised manuscripts, especially for top-tier journals. It covers structuring responses to detailed reviewer comments, addressing significant revisions, incorporating new experiments, and maintaining professional, evidence-based communication to maximize acceptance chances.

This guide outlines the comprehensive workflow for academic authors after their manuscript is accepted for publication in PR&AI. It covers all critical stages, including final draft revisions, recovering author information, detailed proofreading of figures, formulas, references, and adhering to the core principle of making only error corrections, not content modifications. Essential for a smooth transition to print.

Provides a comprehensive guide to the entire academic publication review lifecycle, from initial submission to acceptance. It models the key stages—including editorial screening, expert review, revision, and final check—identifying critical decision criteria, common rejection reasons, and actionable leverage points for authors to significantly improve manuscript quality and navigate the publishing process.

This skill serves as the central orchestrator dashboard for authors submitting manuscripts to PR&AI (Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence). It meticulously outlines the entire publication lifecycle, from initial topic selection and structured writing to experimental design, rigorous self-review, navigating peer review stages (initial, expert, final), addressing revisions, and preparing the final camera-ready submission. It breaks down the academic process into actionable stages and critical milestones, ensuring no crucial step is overlooked during the 6-month review cycle.

Provides a comprehensive guide for authors responding to referee reports and editor decisions for Physical Review Letters (PRL). It outlines the structure for point-by-point responses, strategies for resubmission, and advice on handling various rejection outcomes, ensuring clarity and scientific rigor in the revision process.

This guide provides authors with best practices for structuring scientific papers, specifically focusing on the division of content between the main body (The Letter) and the Supplemental Material (SM). It emphasizes the 'stand-alone' rule, ensuring the core argument remains fully understandable without consulting the SM, while effectively organizing detailed derivations, extended datasets, and secondary controls in the appendix.

This guide serves as a comprehensive workflow router for authors preparing a high-impact physics Letter for Physical Review Letters (PRL). It does not replace specialized skills but guides users through the entire publication pipeline—from confirming the scientific scope and framing the central claim, to managing methodology, figures, length, and revision responses, ensuring the manuscript meets strict journal standards.

This guide provides a structured framework for responding to reviewers and editors regarding a meta-analysis or systematic synthesis. Because such revisions often involve expanding the search, changing eligibility criteria, or adding complex bias diagnostics, the response must maintain impeccable internal statistical consistency across all tables, figures, and estimates. It ensures all methodological changes are clearly propagated and justified.

This guide details how to structure a scholarly response document after receiving major revisions for a theoretical model. It emphasizes that the response must argue from substantive theoretical improvements—by adding derivations, simulations, or clarifying scope—rather than merely defending the original wording. It provides a rigorous, point-by-point framework for authors addressing critical academic feedback.

A comprehensive guide detailing the rigorous, theory-specific peer review process for major academic journals. It explains the mechanics of masked peer review, the distinction between Theoretical Articles and Theoretical Notes, and anticipates the deep theoretical objections that reviewers—who are often rival model builders—will raise. Use this before submission or after receiving a decision letter to properly strategize revisions.

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.

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.