← all publishers

brycewang-stanford

@brycewang-stanford source repo

Report this profile Claim this profile

• 5.3k skills
• 0 followers
• 1k repo stars
• 2 weeks ago last updated

1. ▌
   Uist Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

   Use when deciding whether a project belongs at UIST — testing it against the interface-systems contribution bar (novel technique, toolkit, or hardware that works), making the CHI-vs-UIST routing call explicitly, and re-routing to CSCW, IMWUT, TEI, ISMAR, IUI, or TOCHI when the artifact is not the contribution.
   1k repo stars
2. ▌
   Vldb Author Response · brycewang-stanford

   Use when a PVLDB paper receives a revision verdict and the response package must be built, covering the one-shot revision rule, the three-month window, reading the reviewers' required-changes list, planning new experiments against the clock, and writing the change document that VLDB reviewers re-evaluate against.
   1k repo stars
3. ▌
   Vldb Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

   Use when engineering reproducibility into a VLDB paper before submission, covering hardware and configuration disclosure, dataset and workload provenance, run-to-run variance in systems measurements, competitor-version pinning, figure-to-raw-data traceability, and the disclosure floor PVLDB reviewers apply to performance claims.
   1k repo stars
4. ▌
   Vldb Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

   Use when deciding whether a project belongs at VLDB and in which PVLDB category, applying the data-management-primitive test, choosing among Regular, EA&B, Scalable Data Science, and Vision papers, and routing against SIGMOD, ICDE, CIDR, EDBT, PODS, KDD, systems venues, and The VLDB Journal.
   1k repo stars
5. ▌
   Wacv Author Response · brycewang-stanford

   Use when responding to WACV reviews, covering the optional one-page Round 1 rebuttal and, separately, the Revise-and-Resubmit change summary that carries a revised paper into the no-rebuttal Round 2, including how to triage three reviews for the area chair, what a rebuttal can and cannot claim, and keeping every response double-blind.
   1k repo stars
6. ▌
   Wacv Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

   Use when strengthening the reproducibility of a WACV paper, covering the recipe ledger for constraint-aware systems, benchmark and split hygiene, seed and session honesty, device and power reporting for applications claims, and keeping the reproduction package in sync with the paper across the two-round Revise-and-Resubmit lap.
   1k repo stars
7. ▌
   Wacv Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

   Use when deciding whether a project belongs at WACV or should route elsewhere, covering WACV's applications-first identity within the CVF's CVPR/ICCV/ECCV/WACV calendar, the Applications-vs-Algorithms track choice, whether the two-round winter timing fits your schedule, and routing to CVPR, ICCV, ECCV, 3DV, or a journal.
   1k repo stars
8. ▌
   Wsdm Author Response · brycewang-stanford

   Use when planning author-side communication for WSDM, a venue that historically runs no rebuttal - covers preemptive objection engineering inside the submitted PDF, the narrow legitimate channels to chairs after submission, reading reviews you cannot answer, and converting a rejection into a stronger next-cycle or sibling-venue submission.
   1k repo stars
9. ▌
   Wsdm Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

   Use when hardening the reproducibility of a WSDM paper built on logs, graphs, or user-interaction data - provenance of behavioral datasets, temporal split discipline, click-bias assumptions, seed and variance reporting, privacy-preserving release, and honesty tiers for results no outsider can rerun.
   1k repo stars
10. ▌
    Wsdm Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project belongs at WSDM or a neighbor - tests for the web/social-data core and the practical-yet-principled bar, scope coverage from web search and recommendation to social networks and responsible web AI, routing against SIGIR, KDD, WWW, CIKM, RecSys, and ICWSM, and long-versus-short-track fit.
    1k repo stars
11. ▌
    Aamas Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use 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 weigh the interaction contribution.
    1k repo stars
12. ▌
    Ccs Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use 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.
    1k repo stars
13. ▌
    Acmmm Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when organizing the ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) supplementary material due after the paper deadline — deciding what belongs in the 6-8 page body versus the supplement, packaging video/audio/interactive demos that render on a reviewer's machine, keeping all assets anonymous for double-blind tracks, and pointing to code and data.
    1k repo stars
14. ▌
    Acmmm Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) paper for house style — putting the cross-modal contribution on the first page, framing media (figures, video, audio) as evidence rather than decoration, making the fusion the visible claim, and compressing the argument into a 6-8 page ACM sigconf body with references-only overflow.
    1k repo stars
15. ▌
    Aistats Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when auditing an AISTATS submission for OpenReview readiness, abstract/full-paper deadlines, the 8-page submission body, double-blind anonymity, supplementary material, reproducibility checklist, dual-submission policy, reviewer volunteer requirements, desk-reject triggers, and final-week submission sequencing.
    1k repo stars
16. ▌
    Asplos Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when converting an ASPLOS acceptance or Major Revision decision into a publishable ACM paper within the six-week window — de-anonymization, ACM rights and template obligations, the revision change note, artifact-appendix integration and badge placement, and Digital Library metadata checks.
    1k repo stars
17. ▌
    Asplos Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning an ASPLOS submission against three communities' literatures at once — covering the architecture, OS/systems, and PL/compiler lanes plus accelerator and prior-ASPLOS lines, handling own-work and arXiv material under the 2027 double-blind rules, and meeting the full-name/DOI citation format.
    1k repo stars
18. ▌
    Conext Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing the camera-ready of an accepted ACM CoNEXT paper for its assigned PACMNET issue — systematically de-anonymizing, completing PACMNET journal metadata and ACM rights/CCS/keywords, permanentizing artifact and DOI links, applying any shepherd-required changes, and passing ACM production checks.
    1k repo stars
19. ▌
    Conext Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing the related-work and positioning of an ACM CoNEXT paper — covering the networking literature lanes (SIGCOMM, NSDI, IMC, SIGMETRICS, MobiCom, CCR), delta-first positioning against the venue's own recent programs, and keeping self-citations double-anonymous.
    1k repo stars
20. ▌
    Ecta Rebuttal · brycewang-stanford

    Use when a revise-and-resubmit or referee reports arrive for an Econometrica manuscript and you must write the response letter and plan the revision. Structures the rebuttal and revision; it does not re-derive the theorems (use ecta-theory-model) or rebuild the package (use ecta-replication-package).
    1k repo stars
21. ▌
    Ecta Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding which ecta-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for an Econometrica manuscript. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.
    1k repo stars
22. ▌
    Emnlp Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when explaining or strategizing around EMNLP's two-stage pipeline — ACL Rolling Review scoring with soundness, excitement, and overall recommendation, area-chair meta-reviews, the commitment step, and conference-side decisions by Senior Area Chairs into Main, Findings, or rejection — including resubmission dynamics and ethics flags.
    1k repo stars
23. ▌
    Eurosys Submission · brycewang-stanford

    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.
    1k repo stars
24. ▌
    Facct Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an ACM FAccT submission is evaluated — mutually-anonymous review by a mixed CS+law+social-science pool matched via author-selected focus areas, Area Chairs, the short factual-correction rebuttal, the new Accept/Revise/Reject decision with a revise-and-resubmit round, and how FAccT's interdisciplinary process differs from a pure-ML conference's single-shot rebuttal.
    1k repo stars
25. ▌
    Icalp Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an ICALP (EATCS) submission is evaluated, covering lightweight double-blind review, the separate Track A and Track B program committees, the asymmetric author interaction (Track B rebuttal vs Track A correctness-only contact), correctness-driven acceptance, the single accept/reject decision, and how ICALP's process differs from STOC/FOCS/SODA.
    1k repo stars
26. ▌
    Icassp Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing an accepted ICASSP paper for IEEE Xplore publication, covering the final 4+1 PDF, IEEE PDF eXpress validation, the IEEE electronic copyright form, integrating reviewer-requested fixes without changing the accepted claim, registration and in-person presentation, and choosing open-access options for the proceedings paper.
    1k repo stars
27. ▌
    Icassp Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning an ICASSP submission across the signal-processing literature — IEEE SPS journals (TSP, TASLP, SPL, TIP and siblings), sibling conferences (Interspeech, ICIP, EUSIPCO, WASPAA), and ML venues, citing normally under single-blind review, and sharpening the technical delta against the nearest current-cycle work in four pages.
    1k repo stars
28. ▌
    Icsme Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how an IEEE ICSME research submission is evaluated, covering double-anonymous review, the early-decision cut that issues Accept/Reject before the rebuttal, the "Response Recommended" author-response period, the single-round accept/reject model with no Major Revision, and how ICSME's process differs from FSE's journal-style round and ICSE's cycles.
    1k repo stars
29. ▌
    Ieeesp Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of an IEEE S&P (Oakland) paper, including end-to-end attack demonstration, adaptive-adversary evaluation of defenses, measurement sampling and validity, baselines and ablations, statistical reporting of attack success, and the ethics constraints that shape what experiments are permissible.
    1k repo stars
30. ▌
    Ijcai Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when explaining or planning around IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI two-phase review, summary rejection, PC/SPC/AC/SAC roles, author response visibility, reviewer confidentiality, conflict-of-interest policy, ethics checks, and decision dynamics.
    1k repo stars
31. ▌
    Infocom Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when auditing an IEEE INFOCOM main-conference submission for EDAS readiness, covering the two-step abstract-then-paper registration, the IEEEtran two-column 10-page/9-page-of-text budget, double-blind anonymization of the PDF and metadata, the five-papers-per-author cap, and desk-reject triage before the AoE cutoff.
    1k repo stars
32. ▌
    Issta Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when explaining or planning around ISSTA peer review, covering double-anonymous reviewing, at least three PC reviews, the Accept/Major-Revision/Reject outcome model, the phase-two major-revision resubmission, the named evaluation criteria, how the decision is actually synthesized, and how earlier editions ran multiple rolling deadlines.
    1k repo stars
33. ▌
    Lancet Study Design · brycewang-stanford

    Use to lock study design and mandatory prospective registration for a Lancet clinical manuscript — trial registration before enrollment, protocol + statistical analysis plan, and design rigor (randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, pre-specified endpoints, power, ITT). Covers observational design choices too.
    1k repo stars
34. ▌
    Micro Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how a MICRO submission is judged — the double-blind HotCRP pipeline from the April deadline through the June rebuttal/revision window to the early-July notification, what reviewers score in a microarchitecture paper, the professional-conduct rules, and how the new Industry Track review differs.
    1k repo stars
35. ▌
    Misq Methods · brycewang-stanford

    Use when choosing and defending the research design for a MIS Quarterly manuscript — a behavioral survey/experiment, an economics-of-IS identification strategy, a design-science build-and-evaluate cycle, or an organizational/qualitative design. Matches the method to the IS claim and the manuscript category; it designs the study and hands estimation/evaluation to misq-data-analysis.
    1k repo stars
36. ▌
    Mlsys Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how MLSys peer review works, covering the OpenReview workflow, the mixed ML-and-systems reviewer pool and how each half scores differently, the compressed response window, industrial-track review expectations, decision dynamics, and what the post-acceptance artifact stage means for review strategy.
    1k repo stars
37. ▌
    Mobicom Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when running the final pre-upload audit of a MobiCom submission — confirming the right per-edition HotCRP site and round, the AoE cutoff printed as an Eastern clock time, the 12-page double-column cap, the abstract-registration prerequisite, and the double-blind sweep including wireless-testbed identity leaks.
    1k repo stars
38. ▌
    Mobisys Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when auditing a MobiSys submission for HotCRP readiness — the paper-registration prerequisite, the single December UTC deadline, the 12-page double-column body including figures and tables, double-blind anonymity including device and trace giveaways, desk-reject triggers, and final-week submission sequencing.
    1k repo stars
39. ▌
    Molcell Fit · brycewang-stanford

    Use when triaging a study before any writing — stress-tests whether it clears Molecular Cell's bar (a deep molecular mechanism proven by orthogonal approaches with physiological relevance) or belongs at a sibling. Use this first to decide Molecular Cell vs Cell vs Cell Reports vs NSMB/EMBO J before investing in framing or figures.
    1k repo stars
40. ▌
    Naacl Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how a NAACL decision actually gets made — the division of labor between ACL Rolling Review (reviews, meta-review) and the NAACL program committee (commitment-stage acceptance into Main or Findings), where author leverage exists at each stage, and how the skipped-year calendar shapes committee behavior.
    1k repo stars
41. ▌
    Neurips Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when auditing a NeurIPS main-track submission for current-cycle CFP, OpenReview, formatting, anonymity, track, contribution-type, checklist, code/data, dual-submission, and LLM/agent policy compliance.
    1k repo stars
42. ▌
    Oopsla Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when converting an accepted OOPSLA paper into its PACMPL journal article — final acmsmall formatting within the 25-page revision cap, de-anonymization and Data-Availability Statement updates, ACM open-access and rights steps, hitting the OOPSLA1 (April) or OOPSLA2 (October) issue, and planning the SPLASH talk.
    1k repo stars
43. ▌
    Oopsla Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when building an OOPSLA related-work section — positioning against the PACMPL family (POPL, PLDI, ICFP, OOPSLA itself) plus ECOOP, Onward!, and SE venues, citing journal-era OOPSLA papers in PACMPL volume/issue form, verifying every venue attribution on dblp, and stating per-line technical deltas.
    1k repo stars
44. ▌
    Percom Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing an accepted IEEE PerCom paper for its IEEE Xplore camera-ready, covering de-anonymization, the IEEEtran compsocconf template and page budget, IEEE Xplore metadata (PDF eXpress, eCopyright, ORCID, index terms), integrating reviewer-required changes without scope creep, permanentizing the dataset links, and IEEE production checks.
    1k repo stars
45. ▌
    Percom Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning an IEEE PerCom submission against the pervasive/ubiquitous-computing literature across PerCom, ACM UbiComp/IMWUT, MobiCom, MobiSys, SenSys, and IPSN, writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, keeping self-citations double-blind, and handling concurrent, preprint, and prior-version overlap.
    1k repo stars
46. ▌
    Ppopp Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how a PPoPP submission is evaluated, covering double-blind review, the Program Committee plus External/Extended Review Committee model, TPMS reviewer matching, the author-response rebuttal, the accept/reject decision with automatic poster consideration, and how PPoPP's process differs from PLDI's and CGO's.
    1k repo stars
47. ▌
    Recsys Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing an accepted ACM RecSys paper for camera-ready, covering ACM two-column de-anonymization and reflow, the ACM Digital Library rights/copyright form, metadata and DOI, integrating rebuttal-promised fixes without overreach, releasing the previously-anonymous code/data repository publicly, and registration and presentation obligations.
    1k repo stars
48. ▌
    Recsys Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning an ACM RecSys submission against recommender-systems literature and its neighbors (SIGIR, KDD, WSDM, TheWebConf, UAI), including the reproducibility-critique line, arXiv and prior versions, concurrent work, ACM Digital Library archival status, and the citation coverage RecSys reviewers expect across recommendation subfields.
    1k repo stars
49. ▌
    Sensys Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing an accepted SenSys camera-ready — de-anonymizing the double-column ACM final, completing ACM rights and metadata, restoring acknowledgments, landing the awarded ACM artifact badges onto the paper, releasing traces and firmware within their constraints, and planning the in-person talk and demo for the merged audience.
    1k repo stars
50. ▌
    Sensys Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning a SenSys paper against the sensing, embedded, IoT, and on-device-AI literature — sweeping the right venue lanes after the SenSys/IPSN/IoTDI merger, proving each citation's venue via dblp/ACM DL against the MobiCom/NSDI/IPSN traps, distinguishing your mechanism from the nearest prior system, and self-citing blind-safely.
    1k repo stars
51. ▌
    Sigcomm Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when running the final pre-upload audit of an ACM SIGCOMM submission — the abstract-registration-then-paper sequence on the SIGCOMM HotCRP site, the AoE deadline clock, the 12 single-spaced pre-reference pages including figures and tables, double-blind anonymization, ACM acmart formatting, and the research-versus-experience track choice.
    1k repo stars
52. ▌
    Siggraph Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use to plan a SIGGRAPH or SIGGRAPH Asia Technical Papers campaign backward from the deadline, covering the two annual cycles, the form-then-upload two-step submission, the rebuttal window, the Technical Papers Committee decision, conditional-accept second-stage revision, TOG camera-ready, and the in-person presentation.
    1k repo stars
53. ▌
    Sigir Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how SIGIR evaluates submissions — the per-track OpenReview machinery, double-blind full/short review versus single-anonymous Resources review, the PC-member nomination duty, what IR reviewers score (evaluation validity above novelty claims), the ACM Peer Review Policy layer, and how decisions land.
    1k repo stars
54. ▌
    Sigmod Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when converting an accepted SIGMOD research paper into its PACMMOD journal version, covering the port from the ACM submission template to PACMMOD format, de-anonymization, per-round issue placement, ACM DL metadata, conference presentation logistics, and the post-acceptance artifact and ARI handoff.
    1k repo stars
55. ▌
    Sigmod Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning a SIGMOD submission against the data-management literature, covering coverage across SIGMOD/PACMMOD, PVLDB, ICDE, TODS, and PODS lines, decades-deep systems history, concurrent papers in rolling venues, industrial-system citations, and PACMMOD's substantial-overlap exclusivity rule.
    1k repo stars
56. ▌
    Tacas Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about how a TACAS (ETAPS) submission is evaluated, covering the per-category blind model (double-blind research vs single-blind tool/case-study), the single annual PC round with a rebuttal, the parallel mandatory artifact evaluation that feeds tool-paper acceptance, accept/reject decisions, and how TACAS's process differs from CAV's and from a journal's.
    1k repo stars
57. ▌
    Wp Rebuttal · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing the response to a World Politics revise-and-resubmit. World Politics suggests author response memos not exceed about five pages single-spaced, and revised articles may exceed the word limit only when growth results from responding to reviewers; the response must convert each anonymous reviewer while keeping the editors confident. Structures the response; it does not fabricate new results.
    1k repo stars
58. ▌
    Wp Workflow · brycewang-stanford

    Use as the entry point for any World Politics manuscript. Routes to the right World Politics sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and whether you are writing a research article or a review article. World Politics is a comparative-politics + international-relations specialist, so the router's first job is to confirm the question travels across cases. It dispatches; it does not draft content.
    1k repo stars
59. ▌
    Aamas Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use 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 response window.
    1k repo stars
60. ▌
    Aamas Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening AAMAS reproducibility evidence for interaction claims, including proofs and game definitions, opponent and population sets, self-play protocols, random seeds, compute, uncertainty on strategic outcomes, baselines, and consistency between what the paper claims about agents and what the artifact can actually show.
    1k repo stars
61. ▌
    Aamas Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project is a strong AAMAS fit, comparing AAMAS with AAAI, IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, EC, and the JAAMAS journal, identifying whether the agents are truly the research object, naming the interaction primitive (solution concept, mechanism, coordination, negotiation), and sharpening the multiagent framing before writing begins.
    1k repo stars
62. ▌
    Acl Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging code, datasets, prompts, model outputs, or annotation materials for an ACL submission under ACL Rolling Review, covering anonymized supplement archives, scientific-artifact items of the Responsible NLP checklist, licensing and intended-use documentation, data statements, and post-acceptance public release.
    1k repo stars
63. ▌
    Ccs Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use 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.
    1k repo stars
64. ▌
    Ccs Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening ACM CCS reproducibility evidence, including the artifact-availability posture, threat-model-to-evidence mapping, attack reproduction steps, defense overhead measurement, measurement-dataset provenance, environment and version pinning, and honest justification when artifacts cannot be shared.
    1k repo stars
65. ▌
    Ccs Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a security project fits ACM CCS versus IEEE S&P, USENIX Security, NDSS, PETS, or a crypto/theory venue, identifying the security contribution type, and sharpening the threat model and attacker capability before writing begins.
    1k repo stars
66. ▌
    Acmmm Review Process · brycewang-stanford

    Use when reasoning about the ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) review pipeline — thematic-area routing to reviewers and area chairs, the OpenReview double-blind process and its single-blind track exceptions, the optional anonymous rebuttal, the meta-review and decision, and the oral/poster and award tiers, and where an author actually has leverage.
    1k repo stars
67. ▌
    Aistats Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing AISTATS experiments, simulations, baselines, statistical tests, uncertainty estimates, ablations, random seeds, hyperparameters, compute, dataset handling, and claim-to-evidence fit, with emphasis on experiments that validate theorems rather than chase leaderboards.
    1k repo stars
68. ▌
    Ase Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when preparing an accepted ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) paper's tool and data for the Artifact Evaluation track, targeting the ACM Artifacts Available and Artifacts Reusable badges on the track's own deadline, with the badge shown on the paper's front page in both IEEE Xplore and the ACM Digital Library.
    1k repo stars
69. ▌
    Asplos Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding what goes into an ASPLOS submission's appendices versus the 11 self-contained pages — applying the rule that reviewers are neither required nor encouraged to read supplemental material, using anonymized supplements for unciteable own work, and staging content for the revision and artifact phases.
    1k repo stars
70. ▌
    Asplos Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and footnotes.
    1k repo stars
71. ▌
    Atc Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging an ATC (ACM SIGOPS Annual Technical Conference, formerly USENIX ATC) artifact for the USENIX-lineage evaluation scheme — earning the Artifacts Available, Artifacts Functional, and Results Reproduced badges from the Artifact Evaluation Committee on its separate post-acceptance deadline, with evaluator-proof documentation and a turnkey path to the paper's numbers.
    1k repo stars
72. ▌
    Cc Cover Letter · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting the cover letter (and optional presubmission inquiry) for a Cancer Cell (Cell Press) submission — framing significance, fit, novelty, and suggested/excluded reviewers. It writes the letter; it does not edit the manuscript itself.
    1k repo stars
73. ▌
    Cc Study Design · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the experimental plan for a Cancer Cell (Cell Press) study — orthogonal validation across in vitro, in vivo, and human tumor systems, with controls, replicates, power, randomization, and blinding. It plans design; it does not run statistics or write figures.
    1k repo stars
74. ▌
    Cav Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging a CAV (Computer Aided Verification) artifact for the Artifact Evaluation Committee (AEC), covering the three badges (Available / Functional / Reusable), the smoke-test and full-review phases, ≥2 AEC reviewers per artifact, DOI-issuing archives, verification-tool packaging (solvers, benchmarks, seeds, resource limits, proof witnesses), and the fact that AE is invited, post-notification, and non-conditional.
    1k repo stars
75. ▌
    Chi Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging the artifacts behind an ACM CHI paper — prototypes, study instruments, codebooks, datasets, analysis code — for anonymous review scrutiny and for post-acceptance archival release, in a venue with no formal artifact-evaluation committee doing it for you.
    1k repo stars
76. ▌
    Conext Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    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).
    1k repo stars
77. ▌
    Conext Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    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.
    1k repo stars
78. ▌
    Crim Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Criminology (ASC / Wiley) via the official online submission link — anonymized main document plus separate title page, APA-based formatting, bias-free language, double-anonymized review, single-submission commitment, Wiley ACT ORCID/OA/preprint fields, and live length/abstract caps. Final checks; it does not draft content.
    1k repo stars
79. ▌
    Dac Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging the code, benchmarks, and flows behind an ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) Research Manuscript into a credible, reusable artifact — given that DAC has historically run no formal artifact-evaluation or badge-issuing track (verify per cycle), so the goal is reviewer credibility and community reuse via open EDA flows and DOI-archived releases, not an ACM badge.
    1k repo stars
80. ▌
    Demog Submission · brycewang-stanford

    Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Demography (PAA / Duke University Press) via ScholarOne Manuscripts — article-type selection, double-blind preparation, word/abstract/highlights/keywords limits, house-style formatting, the $35 submission fee, and the open-access (Subscribe to Open) model. Final checks; it does not draft content.
    1k repo stars
81. ▌
    Emnlp Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting an EMNLP author response in the ACL Rolling Review discussion window — triaging replies by soundness versus excitement, deciding what evidence can be added mid-review, staying anonymous, and writing for the area chair's meta-review and the post-commitment Senior Area Chairs, not the reviewers alone.
    1k repo stars
82. ▌
    Emnlp Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when hardening an EMNLP paper's reproducibility record — answering the Responsible NLP checklist truthfully under desk-reject enforcement, pinning model versions and API snapshot dates, logging decoding parameters and prompts, documenting data licensing and annotation, and reporting compute so another lab could rerun the study.
    1k repo stars
83. ▌
    Emnlp Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a project belongs at EMNLP, weighing its empirical-NLP identity against ACL, NAACL, EACL, AACL, CoNLL, LREC-COLING, TACL, and ML venues, matching the contribution to EMNLP's welcomed paper types including negative results and reproductions, and choosing between main conference, Findings, industry, and demo pipelines.
    1k repo stars
84. ▌
    Eurosys Experiments · brycewang-stanford

    Use when designing or auditing the evaluation of a EuroSys paper — choosing workloads that earn the word realistic, tuning baselines beyond their defaults, decomposing end-to-end wins into per-mechanism gains, measuring overheads and worst cases, and sizing experiments to the claims the paper actually makes.
    1k repo stars
85. ▌
    Facct Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting ACM FAccT author responses — the short factual-correction rebuttal after preliminary reviews, and, distinctively for the 2026-new process, the Revise-and-resubmit round where you address Area-Chair-prioritized concerns from a mixed CS+law+social-science panel, map each to a concrete change, and survive a re-review while keeping mutual anonymity.
    1k repo stars
86. ▌
    Facct Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening ACM FAccT transparency and reproducibility — releasing code, data, and analysis for quantitative audits; documenting datasets and models with datasheets, model cards, and data statements; making qualitative and participatory work auditable without breaking confidentiality; pinning provenance for scraped and model-generated data; and keeping the paper, the supplementary material, and any released artifact consistent.
    1k repo stars
87. ▌
    Facct Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a responsible-AI project belongs at ACM FAccT or should route to a pure-ML venue (NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR), an HCI venue (CHI/CSCW), a law/policy venue, or an AI-ethics venue (AIES), by testing whether fairness, accountability, or transparency is a first-class contribution and whether the interdisciplinary framing is native rather than bolted on.
    1k repo stars
88. ▌
    Fse Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging an ESEC/FSE artifact for the ACM Artifact Review and Badging scheme (Artifacts Available, Evaluated Functional and Reusable, Results Reproduced), covering what SIGSOFT evaluators check first, DOI-issuing archives, evaluator-proof documentation, and the separate post-acceptance artifact deadline.
    1k repo stars
89. ▌
    Hri Artifact Evaluation · brycewang-stanford

    Use when packaging the artifacts of an accepted ACM/IEEE HRI paper — code, robot behaviors, de-identified data, and study materials — for openness and any ACM badges the edition offers, while being honest about the limits of reproducing an embodied human-subjects study.
    1k repo stars
90. ▌
    Icalp Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when writing an ICALP (EATCS) Track B rebuttal in response to initial reviews, or when handling a Track A correctness query — correcting reviewer misreadings of a proof, pointing to the exact lemma or step that answers an objection, conceding real gaps honestly, and staying within the lightweight double-blind rules and the short rebuttal window.
    1k repo stars
91. ▌
    Icalp Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when making an ICALP (EATCS) theory result independently checkable — writing complete, self-contained proofs in the appendix and a full version (arXiv/ECCC/HAL), pinning any computational steps to reproducible certificates, and (optionally) formalizing key theorems in Coq/Lean/Isabelle, since ICALP has no runnable-artifact track and proof verifiability is the analogue of reproducibility.
    1k repo stars
92. ▌
    Icalp Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a theoretical computer science result belongs at ICALP (EATCS) and, if so, whether it is a Track A (algorithms, complexity, games) or Track B (automata, logic, semantics, theory of programming) paper, and when distinguishing ICALP from the US theory venues STOC, FOCS, and SODA or from a TCS journal by contribution shape, community, and the LIPIcs open-access model.
    1k repo stars
93. ▌
    Icassp Supplementary · brycewang-stanford

    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.
    1k repo stars
94. ▌
    Icassp Writing Style · brycewang-stanford

    Use when revising an ICASSP paper into the IEEE two-column four-page house style — leading with the signal-processing contribution and mechanism, naming the task-matched metric on the first page, compressing method and results into 4+1 pages without a reviewed appendix, and writing math-forward claims that survive a subfield-expert reviewer.
    1k repo stars
95. ▌
    Icsme Author Response · brycewang-stanford

    Use when drafting an IEEE ICSME author response during the double-anonymous author-response period, covering the early-decision cut that decides whether you respond at all, answering the PC's specific "Response Recommended" questions with existing evidence, staying anonymous, and doing it in one round with no Major Revision safety net.
    1k repo stars
96. ▌
    Icsme Reproducibility · brycewang-stanford

    Use when strengthening IEEE ICSME reproducibility and open-science evidence, covering the data-availability statement, anonymized-but-runnable artifacts, mining and LLM provenance pinning, claim-to-evidence mapping, honest degrees of reproducibility, and consistency between the paper and the artifact ahead of the ROSE-Festival IEEE badges.
    1k repo stars
97. ▌
    Icsme Topic Selection · brycewang-stanford

    Use when deciding whether a software-engineering project belongs at IEEE ICSME (maintenance, evolution, reverse engineering, program comprehension, technical debt, refactoring, mining software repositories) or should be routed to ICSE, FSE, ASE, ISSTA, MSR, SANER, SCAM, or an SE journal (TSE/EMSE), and when to use ICSME's Journal-First, Registered Reports, or RENE tracks instead of the research track.
    1k repo stars
98. ▌
    Ieeesp Camera Ready · brycewang-stanford

    Use when converting an IEEE S&P (Oakland) acceptance into a final paper, including working the shepherd against the draft meta-review's concern list, adding the ethics section, de-anonymizing and restoring disclosure specifics, IEEE compsoc and Xplore requirements, and coordinating artifact submission.
    1k repo stars
99. ▌
    Ieeesp Related Work · brycewang-stanford

    Use when positioning an IEEE S&P (Oakland) paper against prior literature, including coverage across the four security flagships, concurrent-work and arXiv norms, the 40% resubmission-overlap disclosure, verifying venue attribution via dblp and IEEE Xplore, and anonymity-safe self-citation.
    1k repo stars
100. ▌
     Ijcai Author Response · brycewang-stanford

     Use when drafting IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI author responses under the official one-page template, concise-response guidance, no-new-results constraints, code-link restrictions, factual-error triage, pressing-question triage, and confidential unethical-review channel.
     1k repo stars