Finance & Business

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when deciding what belongs in an ACM FAccT paper body versus its endmatter statements, appendices, and supplementary material — the 14-page acmart budget, the extra endmatter page for ethics/adverse-impacts statements, the rule that decision-critical evidence stays in the reviewed pages, mutually-anonymous supplementary material, and how to split an interdisciplinary paper between body, endmatter, and artifact.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when revising an ACM FAccT paper so that a fairness/accountability/transparency contribution is legible on the first page to a mixed CS+law+social-science reviewer pool, claims are scoped to who is affected, limitations and harms are argued rather than recited, the interdisciplinary framing is native, and the acmart page budget and endmatter statements are used well.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when deciding what belongs in an IEEE ICSME paper body versus its anonymized artifact and appendices, covering the IEEEtran two-column 10-page budget where figures and appendices count, the rule that decision-critical evidence stays inside the reviewed pages, double-anonymous supplementary material, and how to split a mining/evolution paper between body and package.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when drafting an IPSN-lineage rebuttal, covering the double-blind response to sensor-systems reviewers on ground truth, baseline fairness, deployment realism, energy accounting, and simulation-vs-real-hardware doubts, without leaking identity and without promising experiments not yet run.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when revising the prose of a NAACL submission — scoping every claim to the languages and varieties actually tested, presenting non-English examples with glosses that carry the argument, writing a Limitations section that anticipates reviewers, and cutting to the ARR content-page budget without losing the linguistic substance.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when drafting or tightening a PPoPP paper's prose and structure, covering the two-column acmart sigplan layout, the 10-page text+figures budget, stating the concurrency-correctness and scalability claim up front, presenting speedup curves and core sweeps, and the parallel-programming conventions PPoPP reviewers expect.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when designing or auditing ACM RecSys experiments centered on offline-versus-online evaluation — temporal splits, equal-budget baseline tuning, full-ranking versus sampled metrics, off-policy estimators (IPS, SNIPS, doubly robust), A/B tests, exposure and popularity bias, seeds and variance, and matching each recommendation claim to its evidence.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when deciding what goes inside a SIGIR paper's page budget versus the cited repository — SIGIR counts appendices inside the 9-page (full) and 4-page (short) limits with only references free, so overflow material must be re-homed into run files, repository docs, or cut, without hiding review-critical evidence outside the paper.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when drafting or revising prose for a SIGIR paper — the IR register that leads with task, collection, and metric; claim sentences calibrated to significance results; first-page architecture for retrieval contributions; table-centric argumentation; and compressing into the 9-page budget without cutting soundness.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when deciding what belongs in a TACAS (ETAPS) paper body versus its appendix, supplementary website, and artifact, covering the 16-page (or 6-page) llncs.cls budget that excludes references and appendix, the rule that decision-critical content stays in the reviewed pages, category-appropriate anonymity of supplementary material, and how to split a verification paper between body, appendix, and a mandatory-or-voluntary artifact.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when auditing a EuroSys submission before a HotCRP upload — abstract registration versus full-paper gates, the 12-page technical-content budget with free references, the acmart sigplan review/anonymous template and text block, double-blind hygiene, and the CFP warning that formatting or anonymization violations are not reviewed.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when deciding what goes in the ACM CoNEXT main body versus the appendix budget versus the artifact — splitting content by decision-criticality so nothing a reviewer needs to accept the paper hides in an appendix or repository, within the acmart limits (long ≤4 appendix pages, short ≤2).

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when shaping the prose and structure of an ACM CoNEXT paper — leading with the networking problem and deployment context, tying every claim to a measurement on the real target platform, arguing limitations rather than reciting them, and holding the acmart page budget for long (≤16) and short (≤10) papers.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when deciding what goes in the four ICASSP pages versus a public release, given that ICASSP has no reviewed appendix — managing the 4+1 budget, curating optional multimedia (audio, image, video) that reviewers may open, hosting derivations and extra results externally, and keeping the main paper self-contained under single-blind review.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when revising an IEEE PerCom paper for a pervasive-computing contribution on the first page, cross-subject claims stated precisely, a limitations section that argues rather than recites, evidence proportional to the claim, double-blind wording, and disciplined use of the tight IEEEtran 9-page budget.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when organizing ACM RecSys supporting material under the venue's no-separate-supplement convention — how to split a recommender paper between the body, the appendix that counts inside the page budget, and the anonymous in-paper repository, so tuning grids, extra datasets, and ablations land where reviewers use them.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when revising an ACM RecSys paper for a recommendation-first first page, honest offline-versus-online framing, equal-budget baseline claims, leakage-aware evaluation wording, ACM two-column 8-page compression, double-blind phrasing, and claims scoped to what the ranking evidence actually supports rather than to leaderboard language.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when preparing an accepted MobiSys paper for the ACM Digital Library camera-ready — de-anonymization, the ACM double-column final layout and 12-page budget, ACM rights and CCS metadata, delivering any results promised in the rebuttal, coordinating the three artifact badges, registration, and the June in-person talk and demo in Cambridge.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use to finalize PNAS Nexus display items — count figures and tables against the graphical-element budget, size to journal column widths, set legible fonts, show-the-data with n and defined error bars, scale bars, colorblind-safe palettes, legend structure, and image integrity (raw, unprocessed images must be retained). Enforces figure rigor before submission.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when auditing an ACM SIGGRAPH / SIGGRAPH Asia Technical Papers submission for Linklings readiness, covering the two-step form-then-upload deadline, the acmart (>=2.16) format and the 7-page conference-track budget, the dual-track vs Journal-only choice, the mandatory representative image and supplemental video, and desk-risk triage before the UTC cutoff.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when deciding what fits inside an IEEE INFOCOM paper's tight IEEEtran budget, covering the rule that appendices count toward the nine pages of text, the absence of a separate supplementary channel at review time, double-blind handling of any released material, and how to split an analytical or systems networking paper between the body and an optional external release.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when strengthening IEEE INFOCOM reproducibility even though the venue runs no formal artifact-evaluation track, covering pinned simulator setups, released code and datasets where possible, complete proofs and parameters within the page budget, IEEE reproducibility-badge options, and consistency between what the paper claims and what a reader could rebuild.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when writing the response to a The Journal of Politics (JOP) revise-and-resubmit. The response must convert each reviewer without alienating the editor, stay within JOP's page budget, keep the manuscript double-blind, and preserve replicability so the eventual JOP replication-analyst check passes. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when auditing an ACM SIGMETRICS submission for HotCRP readiness, covering the choice among the three rolling deadlines (summer/fall/winter), the separate abstract-registration step, the 20-page single-column acmsmall budget plus unlimited references, double-anonymous review (and the Operational Systems Track exception), track selection, POMACS publication, and desk-reject triage before the AoE cutoff.

brycewang-stanford Bundle

Use as the final preflight before submitting to Molecular Cell — a complete checklist across mechanism, single-mechanism arc, length budget, figures, STAR Methods, data deposition, numbered references, front-matter artifacts, and required files. Bundles the checklist and cover-letter templates.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when drafting the revision and response letter after a The Accounting Review (TAR) revise-and-resubmit — structuring point-by-point responses to the editor and the (minimum two) reviewers across a multi-round developmental process, including identification, contribution, and data-authenticity demands. Drafts the response after revisions; it does not interpret the decision letter (tar-review-process).

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when deciding which tar-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when deciding what belongs in an ACM SIGMETRICS paper body versus its appendices and anonymized artifact, covering the 20-page single-column acmsmall budget, the rule that decision-critical claims (theorem statements, assumptions, headline validation) stay inside the reviewed pages, full proofs in appendices, double-anonymous supplementary material, and how to split a proof-plus-measurement paper.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when revising an ACM SIGMETRICS paper for a rigorously stated performance contribution on the first page, explicit modeling assumptions and their validity, theorems paired with numerical/empirical validation, evidence proportional to the claim, double-anonymous wording, and disciplined use of the 20-page single-column acmsmall budget.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — the Editorial Manager portal, double-blind anonymization, AI disclosure statement, ORCID and Conflict-of-Interest forms, data-authenticity files, the submission caps, and AAA/Chicago formatting. Checks readiness to submit; it does not handle the post-decision response (tar-rebuttal).

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when polishing the prose of an Advanced Materials manuscript for Wiley house style, concision, precise materials nomenclature and units, and readability across materials subfields. Polishes language; does not restructure the advance or manage the length budget.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when turning results or a built artifact into an explicit contribution for a MIS Quarterly manuscript — stating what new IS knowledge the paper produces (behavioral mechanism, design principles, economic effect, or organizational insight), why it matters for both IS theory and practice, and why it justifies its page budget. Frames the contribution; it does not run the analysis (misq-data-analysis).

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when preparing a Web Conference (WWW) camera-ready after acceptance, covering the uniform 12-page/8-content proceedings budget, de-anonymization and restored acknowledgements, ACM e-rights and TAPS production, ACM Open cost exposure, author registration, and the artifact-badging submission that rides along with the final files.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when polishing the prose of a Physical Review Letters manuscript for APS house style, concision, precise notation, and out-of-subfield readability. Polishes language; does not restructure the result or manage length budget.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when building tables and figures for a Journal of Communication (JoC) manuscript so exhibits are self-contained, accessible, APA-formatted, and counted toward the page budget correctly. JoC's 35-page limit includes tables and figures, so exhibits must earn their space. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.

brycewang-stanford Skill

Use when deciding which revacc-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Review of Accounting Studies (RAST) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.