1,936 skills found · Page 43 of 65
brycewang-stanford / ase-supplementaryUse when deciding what belongs in the 10-page ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) paper body versus the artifact and supplementary material, splitting content by decision-criticality so nothing that decides acceptance lives outside the reviewed pages under the 10+2 budget.
brycewang-stanford / ase-writing-styleUse when shaping the prose and structure of an ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) research paper, covering the automation-first first-page arc, stating the automated task precisely, keeping the tool runnable and the model-swap test in mind, threats-as-argument, and the 10+2 page disciplin…
brycewang-stanford / atc-author-responseUse when writing the ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) rebuttal and the shepherd's description-of-changes — the short round-two response that corrects factual misreadings and supplies requested measurements, and the point-by-point revision record a conditional-accepta…
brycewang-stanford / atc-reproducibilityUse when building the reproducibility story for an ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) systems paper — pinning testbed and software environments, providing a turnkey path from the artifact to the headline numbers, and preparing an anonymized-but-runnable review package…
brycewang-stanford / atc-writing-styleUse when drafting or revising an ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) systems paper — writing a self-standing two-page extended abstract for the round-one gate, structuring the implementation-and-measurement narrative, reporting costs beside gains, and holding the two-co…
brycewang-stanford / amann-review-processUse when planning around the two-step proposal→invited-review process of the Academy of Management Annals (Annals) — the twice-yearly proposal cadence, double-blind proposal review, the editor-only full-review development, and timelines.
brycewang-stanford / amann-submissionUse when running the final pre-submission preflight for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) proposal or invited full review via the Manuscript Central portal — proposal-vs-invited-review route, deadlines, formatting, CV, and anonymity. Final checks; it does not draft content.
brycewang-stanford / amann-tables-figuresUse when building exhibits for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the signature framework figure, who-studied-what synthesis tables, and search/coverage exhibits that summarize across a literature.
brycewang-stanford / amann-writing-styleUse when revising an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review for the house voice — authoritative, integrative, agenda-setting "reviews with an attitude," with a strong problem-first opening and a contribution-stating abstract.
brycewang-stanford / amj-literature-positioningUse when the front end of an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript needs to engage the right literatures and stake a clear position in an ongoing theoretical conversation.
brycewang-stanford / amj-rebuttalUse when drafting the revision and response letter after an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) revise-and-resubmit — structuring point-by-point responses to the action editor and reviewers across a multi-round developmental process.
brycewang-stanford / amj-review-processUse when you need to understand or set expectations for the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) editorial and peer-review process — desk review, the developmental multi-round R&R culture, and reading a decision letter.
brycewang-stanford / amr-contribution-framingUse when articulating and differentiating the theoretical contribution of an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — showing precisely what is NEW versus prior theory and why it matters.
brycewang-stanford / amr-literature-positioningUse when you must identify which theoretical conversation an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript enters and how it "challenges and extends" that conversation.
brycewang-stanford / amr-review-processUse when you need to understand the Academy of Management Review (AMR) developmental, multi-round review and interpret a decision letter focused on theoretical novelty and logical soundness. Explains the process and decision types; it does NOT draft the response document (that is amr-rebuttal).
brycewang-stanford / aaai-artifact-evaluationUse when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.
brycewang-stanford / aaai-author-responseUse when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion…
brycewang-stanford / aaai-review-processUse when explaining or planning around AAAI's two-phase review process, Phase 1 rejection risk, Phase 2 additional reviews, AI-assisted review pilot, author feedback, SPC/AC discussion, and final decisions.
brycewang-stanford / aaai-supplementaryUse when organizing AAAI supplementary material, including the technical appendix, multimedia appendix, and code/data ZIPs, while respecting that AAAI supplements are due with the paper, treated as immutable after submission, must stay double-blind, and should never hide main-paper-critical evidence…
brycewang-stanford / aaai-workflowUse when planning an AAAI project timeline from topic selection through abstract, OpenReview submission, two-phase review, rebuttal, decision, camera-ready, registration, presentation, and public artifact release.
brycewang-stanford / aaai-writing-styleUse when revising an AAAI manuscript for broad-AI-audience fit, a first-page contribution statement legible to non-specialist Phase-1 reviewers, two-column readability, concise novelty claims, reproducibility-checklist alignment, hedged limitations and ethics, and policy-aware framing of AI-system a…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-artifact-evaluationUse when packaging AAMAS multiagent code, environments, opponent and population sets, random seeds, game definitions, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or a public post-acceptance release, even without a separate artifact badge, so that game-theory and MARL reviewers can inspect and re-ru…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-author-responseUse when drafting an AAMAS rebuttal to preliminary OpenReview reviews, covering the double-blind constraint, the no-new-results and no-revised-paper norms, how to answer game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewers at once, and how to give the area chair a clean acceptance rationale within a short respo…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-related-workUse when positioning an AAMAS submission against multiagent, game-theory, and reinforcement-learning literature spread across AAMAS, AAAI, IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, EC, and JAAMAS, including arXiv and workshop versions, concurrent submissions, prior conference versions, and the cross-community citation…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-review-processUse when explaining or planning around AAMAS peer review, covering OpenReview review release, the double-blind rebuttal on preliminary reviews, area-chair discussion, the mixed game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewer pool, the public posting of reviews and decisions, and how acceptance criteria weig…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-supplementaryUse when preparing AAMAS supplementary material - proofs, extended game and mechanism definitions, extra multiagent experiments, opponent-set details, and the anonymized artifact zip - under the size cap, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion limits, including how to split a game-theory-plus-experiment…
brycewang-stanford / aamas-workflowUse when planning an AAMAS project timeline from venue fit through abstract, full-paper or extended-abstract upload, supplementary material, the double-blind rebuttal, decision, IFAAMAS camera-ready, registration, and presentation, with track-specific deadlines and backward-planning offsets for a ga…
brycewang-stanford / ccs-author-responseUse when drafting an ACM CCS rebuttal during the HotCRP author-response window, covering threat-model defenses, adaptive-attack objections, ethics and disclosure questions, anonymity constraints, adversarial reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused replies aimed at the meta-reviewer.
brycewang-stanford / ccs-review-processUse when explaining or planning around ACM CCS peer review, the two-cycle HotCRP workflow, decision categories including minor revision, the rebuttal window, the adversarial reviewer pool, ethics and disclosure scrutiny, meta-review dynamics, and ACM proceedings outcomes.
brycewang-stanford / ccs-supplementaryUse when preparing ACM CCS appendices and supplementary material, including the ethics considerations appendix, protocol transcripts, formal proofs, measurement tables, and anonymized supporting material under the 12-page body limit, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion constraints for a security pape…
