Results for “journal-submission”

11 skills

brycewang-stanford

Polish English academic papers for SSCI journal submission. This skill checks grammar, improves readability, and enhances academic tone. Use when the user asks to polish, proofread, edit, or improve their English academic paper, manuscript, or article — especially when targeting SSCI, SCI, or other international journals. Also use when the user asks to "润色", "修改语法", "提升学术性", "polish my paper", or mentions their paper needs language improvement for journal submission. Always trigger on any request involving academic English polishing, even if the user doesn't explicitly say "SSCI."

More results

journal-fit-screening

Use when choosing a journal for a finished or nearly finished manuscript, when index status in Scopus, SSCI, ESCI, or TR Dizin must be confirmed, when a venue looks predatory, or when a cover letter needs drafting from the manuscript's actual claims.

brycewang-stanford

brycewang-stanford

Use when auditing an ACL submission before an ACL Rolling Review cycle deadline, covering long/short paper page budgets, the mandatory Limitations section, Responsible NLP checklist, anonymized PDFs and supplements, preprint declarations, dual-submission rules, resubmission linking, and ARR desk-reject triggers on OpenReview.

Write, append, or read desk journal entries. The journal is persistent memory — what survives session boundaries. A good entry has: what was done, current state, next step.

brycewang-stanford

Use to choose the PNAS submission track — Direct Submission (standard, editor-assigned, peer reviewed) vs Contributed Submission (an NAS member communicates their own paper). Covers eligibility, the editor/member role, the discontinued and legacy tracks, and how to pick. Unique to PNAS.

Evaluate scientific manuscripts and grant proposals with structured, checklist-based peer review covering methodology, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, and reporting standards.

30.2k · bundle

peer-review-confidentiality-protocol

Use when serving as a peer reviewer and deciding whether and how AI may assist, when a manuscript under review must never be pasted into an external tool, or when a confidentiality-preserving review and disclosure are needed.

public-scholarship-ethics-adapter

Use when adapting academic findings for a public audience (op-ed, social post, podcast) and the simplification must stay evidence-faithful, avoid overclaiming, respect embargoes, and disclose AI assistance.

brycewang-stanford

Use when auditing a CAV (Computer Aided Verification) submission for portal readiness, covering the four submission categories (Regular / Short Tool / Short Application / Industrial Experience & Case Studies), the LNCS page limits, the per-category anonymization matrix, the artifact-intent declaration, and desk-reject triage before the AoE paper deadline.

brycewang-stanford

Use after PNAS reviews arrive to triage the decision, prioritize experiments, and draft a point-by-point response that is respectful, evidence-led, and honest about limits. Do not run before the main text is actually revised.