Results for “journal”

Simulates a full multi-reviewer journal review PANEL — 5 personas (Editor-in-Chief + 3 peer reviewers + a Devil's Advocate) debate a manuscript and produce a consensus Editorial Decision (accept/minor/major/reject) plus a prioritized Revision Roadmap. Modes: full, re-review (verify revisions addressed prior comments), quick, methodology-focus, Socratic guided. Use for: simulate peer review, mock review panel, editorial review before submission, multiple reviewer perspectives, re-review of a revised manuscript, or 'critique my paper hard'. For a single-reviewer referee report use alterlab-peer-review; for rubric/grade scoring use alterlab-scholar-eval; to write/revise the paper use alterlab-paper-writer. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.

STATA code pattern library for empirical archival accounting research. Provides tested syntax from 126 peer-reviewed JAR (Journal of Accounting Research) replication files (2017-2025). Use when the user asks procedural questions like "How do I implement [method]?" or "Show me code for [technique]" — including: entropy balancing, propensity score matching (PSM), difference-in-differences (DiD), regression discontinuity (RDD), instrumental variables (IV), event studies (CAR/BHAR), survival analysis, Fama-MacBeth regressions, bootstrap, quantile regression, reghdfe/xtreg/areg, clustering standard errors, fixed effects, esttab/outreg2 table formatting, winsorization, leads/lags. Users can specify their variables (e.g., treatment, outcomes, controls) and receive adapted syntax. NOTE: This skill provides code patterns from published papers, not research design advice.

Turn vague "what did I do?" into evidence-backed impact statements for performance reviews, self-reviews, promotion packets, and weekly updates. Uniquely mines Copilot CLI session logs to reconstruct forgotten work, plus git commits and GitHub PRs. Enforces a 3-part impact contract (action → result → evidence). Works standalone with zero dependencies. Trigger for: "brag", "log work", "what did I do", "backfill my work history", "performance review", "self-review", "self assessment", "write impact statement", "review prep", "promo packet", "promotion case", "weekly update", "status report", "accomplishments", "what did I ship", "I forgot to log my work", "summarize my work", "track my wins", "what should I highlight", "end of half", "career growth", "work journal", or any request to document, summarize, or organize work accomplishments.

Guide users through writing a systematic literature review (SLR) following the PRISMA 2020 framework. Use this skill whenever the user mentions 'systematic review', 'systematic literature review', 'SLR', 'PRISMA', 'PRISMA 2020', 'PRISMA flow diagram', 'PRISMA checklist', or asks for help writing, structuring, or auditing a literature review that follows reporting guidelines. Also trigger when the user asks about inclusion/exclusion criteria for a review, search strategies for databases like Scopus/WoS/PubMed, study selection processes, risk of bias assessment, or narrative synthesis for a review paper. This skill covers the full PRISMA 2020 checklist (27 items), produces a Word document manuscript in strict journal article format, generates an annotated PRISMA flow diagram, and enforces APA 7th Edition referencing throughout. It does NOT cover meta-analysis or statistical pooling. By Chuah Kee Man.

Decision-grade entity research skill — produces a hypothesis-tested dossier on a specific company, person, nonprofit, or government org, not a generic profile. Forcing intake makes the user state their hypothesis upfront (what they already believe and want to verify or disprove) so the dossier tests it rather than confirms it. Output is an editable Word document (.docx) with verdict on the hypothesis, identity facts, 12-month activity timeline, network and reputation signals, red flags, conversation hooks tied to specific findings, and source-provenance audit log. Uses WebSearch + WebFetch + free APIs (SEC EDGAR, GitHub, ProPublica) as workhorses; optional BYOK MCPs enhance coverage. Use when the user asks for background research, diligence, or meeting prep on a specific entity (e.g., 'prep me for a meeting with [person/company]', 'due diligence on [company]'). Honors sensitivity exclusions for journalism + personal-vetting contexts.