Skill UI

A specialized guide for authors targeting top-tier academic journals in moral, political, and legal philosophy. It assesses manuscript rigor, guiding authors on crafting original normative arguments, engaging with rival theories, and distinguishing between theoretical contributions and mere case studies. It helps authors determine if their work meets the high standards required for publication, especially when choosing between related venues.

This guide outlines the rigorous methodological standards for empirical work in AI fairness, accountability, and transparency (FAccT). It advises researchers on matching specific claims (e.g., disparate harm) to appropriate evidence types—including disaggregated metrics, coded qualitative data, and documented ethical procedures. It stresses the importance of ethical review, handling protected attributes, and acknowledging limitations to ensure high scientific and ethical rigor.

A comprehensive guide for authors submitting to FAccT, detailing the mandatory separation of content into three zones: the main Body, the Endmatter statements (including Ethics and AI Usage), and the Appendix/Supplementary material. It outlines strict rules regarding anonymity, page limits, and ensuring the core argument is decision-critical and visible from the main reviewed pages.

This is a comprehensive audit checklist for submitting full-length research papers to the HRI conference. It guides authors through critical submission mechanics, including adhering to two-step deadlines (abstract then paper), selecting the correct technical track, managing formatting (8 pages, ACM template), ensuring double-blind anonymity across PDF, video, and data, and meeting human-participants ethics standards before final submission.

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.

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.

Comprehensive guide for converting an accepted academic paper into the final camera-ready version for IEEE proceedings. It details crucial post-acceptance steps, including working through the shepherd's concern ledger, mandatory inclusion of the ethics section, de-anonymizing sensitive technical details (like vendor names and CVEs), and adhering to strict IEEE formatting and submission mechanics. Essential for authors finalizing submissions.

This guide provides rigorous standards for designing, validating, and reporting security research, particularly for high-stakes academic conferences like IEEE S&P. It covers critical areas including adaptive adversary modeling, measurement validity (sampling, ethics), statistical reporting, establishing strong baselines/ablations, and adhering to ethical constraints (IRB, authorization) to ensure evidence is robust and reproducible.

This comprehensive guide serves as the mandatory final audit checklist for papers submitted to top-tier security conferences (like S&P). It covers crucial, non-negotiable steps—including meticulous formatting, ORCID verification, deep anonymization techniques, and ethics considerations—to prevent preventable desk-rejects during the submission workflow.

A comprehensive guide for authors responding to major academic conference reviews (e.g., ACM IMC). It details the strategy for the two distinct review turns: the initial rebuttal and the highly structured, bounded One-Shot-Revision. Learn how to maintain double-blind anonymity, address specific action points, and defend your methodology against common reviewer concerns (e.g., validity, ethics, scope creep).

A comprehensive audit checklist for submitting academic papers to the ACM IMC conference. It covers critical details including double-blind anonymity (scrubbing infrastructure leaks), mandatory Ethics declarations (IRB/Belmont), proper formatting (BBL, acmart), page limits, and cycle planning to minimize desk-reject risks.

This guide outlines strict rules for structuring ACM IMC papers, teaching authors how to correctly partition content. It mandates that all decision-critical evidence—including core findings, methodology, and ethics discussion—must be self-contained within the limited-page body, preventing the misuse of the unlimited appendix space. It ensures the paper remains reviewable and coherent.