Turn research into published scholarship. From blank page to accepted manuscript.
This skill provides structured workflows for drafting academic papers, with venue-specific guidance for HCI conferences (CHI), business publications (HBR), and academic journals (Cognitive Systems Research, Minds & Machines).
Key insight: Writing IS thinking. You don't figure out your argument first and then write it — you figure it out BY writing it.
Venue Quick Reference
User's Target Pipeline
Venue
Type
Word Limit
Review Time
Focus
ACM CHI
Conference
7,500 (full) / 3,000 (LBW)
3-4 months
HCI, interaction design
Harvard Business Review
Magazine
2,500-3,000
2-4 weeks
Business practice, executives
Cognitive Systems Research
Journal
8,000-12,000
3-6 months
Cognitive science, AI systems
Minds & Machines
Journal
8,000-12,000
3-6 months
Philosophy of AI, consciousness
Venue Selection Matrix
Your Research Has...
Best Venue
User study with metrics
CHI
Business implications, case study
HBR
Cognitive architecture, theory
Cognitive Systems Research
Philosophical argument about AI
Minds & Machines
Quick preliminary findings
CHI LBW or Workshop
ACM CHI Papers
CHI Paper Types
Type
Length
Purpose
Acceptance Rate
Full Paper
7,500 words
Complete research contribution
~25%
Late-Breaking Work (LBW)
3,000 words
Preliminary findings
~40%
Workshop Paper
2,000-4,000 words
Community discussion
Varies
Case Study
7,500 words
In-depth design exploration
~25%
Alt.CHI
7,500 words
Provocative/unconventional
~30%
CHI Full Paper Template
# Title: Catchy but Accurate (10-12 words max)## Abstract (150 words)
[One sentence: Problem/gap]
[One sentence: Approach/method]
[One sentence: Key findings (quantified)]
[One sentence: Contribution category]
[One sentence: Implications]
## Author Keywords
keyword1; keyword2; keyword3; keyword4
## CCS Concepts
• Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction (HCI)
---
## 1. Introduction (~800 words)### 1.1 Opening Hook
[Compelling opening that establishes stakes]
### 1.2 Problem Statement
[Clear articulation of the gap/challenge]
### 1.3 Research Questions
RQ1: [Question]
RQ2: [Question]
### 1.4 Contributions
We contribute:
1. [Empirical contribution: findings from study]
2. [Artifact contribution: system/tool/design]
3. [Methodological contribution: new approach] (if applicable)
### 1.5 Paper Structure
Section 2 reviews... Section 3 describes...
---
## 2. Related Work (~1,200 words)### 2.1 [Theme 1]
[Position your work relative to prior art]
### 2.2 [Theme 2]
[Identify gap your work fills]
### 2.3 Summary and Gap
[Explicit gap statement leading to your research]
---
## 3. System/Method/Design (~1,500 words)### 3.1 Design Rationale
[Why did you build/design it this way?]
### 3.2 Implementation
[Technical details sufficient for replication]
### 3.3 [Component Description]
[Architecture, features, etc.]
---
## 4. User Study (~1,500 words)### 4.1 Participants
[N=X, demographics, recruitment, compensation]
### 4.2 Procedure
[Step-by-step protocol]
### 4.3 Measures
[What you measured and how]
### 4.4 Analysis
[Qualitative: coding approach. Quantitative: statistical tests]
---
## 5. Findings (~1,500 words)### 5.1 [Finding 1]
"P5 noted that..." [Quote + interpretation]
### 5.2 [Finding 2]
[Quantitative: "Participants completed task significantly faster (M=X, SD=Y), t(df)=Z, p<.001"]
### 5.3 [Finding 3]
[Theme with supporting evidence]
---
## 6. Discussion (~1,000 words)### 6.1 Implications for Design
[What should designers do differently?]
### 6.2 Implications for Research
[What research directions does this open?]
### 6.3 Limitations
[Honest assessment: sample, method, scope]
### 6.4 Future Work
[Concrete next steps]
---
## 7. Conclusion (~200 words)
[Synthesis of contributions and significance]
---
## Acknowledgments
[Funding, participants, collaborators]
## References
[ACM format, recent work emphasized]
CHI Contribution Types
CHI values explicit contribution statements. Choose your type:
Type
Description
Evidence Needed
Empirical
New knowledge about people/technology
User study, data
Artifact
Novel system, tool, or interaction
Implementation, evaluation
Methodological
New way to study/design
Comparison to existing methods
Theoretical
New framework or model
Grounding, application
Dataset
New resource for community
Description, access, ethics
Survey
Comprehensive literature synthesis
Systematic review
Opinion/Essay
Perspective on field direction
Argument, evidence
CHI Writing Tips
Do
Don't
Use participant quotes (P1, P2...)
Generalize without evidence
State contribution type explicitly
Assume readers will infer
Include representative figures
Over-rely on text
Acknowledge limitations early
Hide weaknesses
Cite recent CHI papers
Ignore venue norms
Harvard Business Review (HBR)
HBR Article Types
Type
Length
Purpose
Feature Article
3,000-4,000 words
In-depth analysis
Spotlight
2,500-3,000 words
Focused insight
Big Idea
2,000-2,500 words
Provocative argument
Case Study
2,500-3,000 words
Company narrative
Web Article
800-1,200 words
Quick insight
HBR Template
# Title: Action-Oriented, Benefit-Focused## Subtitle: One Sentence Elaboration### The Hook (100 words)
[Surprising statistic, provocative question, or vivid anecdote]
[Why executives should keep reading]
### The Problem (300 words)
[What challenge are leaders facing?]
[Why is it getting worse or more urgent?]
[What's at stake?]
### The Insight (500 words)
[Your key finding or framework]
[What did you discover that changes the game?]
[Name your concept/framework if introducing one]
### The Evidence (800 words)
[Case study 1: Company that did this well]
[Case study 2: Contrasting example]
[Data that supports your argument]
[Quote from executive or expert]
### The Framework/How-To (600 words)
[Step 1: What to do first]
[Step 2: Next action]
[Step 3: How to sustain]
[Pitfalls to avoid]
### The Conclusion (200 words)
[Synthesis of the opportunity]
[Call to action for leaders]
[The future if they act (or don't)]
---
**About the Author**
[2-3 sentence bio emphasizing relevant expertise]
HBR Writing Style
Academic Style
HBR Style
"The study found that..."
"When we surveyed 300 executives..."
"Participants reported..."
"One CEO told us..."
"Hypothesis 1 was supported"
"The data confirms what many leaders suspect:"
"Implications include..."
"Here's what this means for your organization:"
Passive voice
Active, direct voice
Citations in text
Minimal citations, conversational
HBR Submission Tips
Pitch first — HBR prefers pitches before full drafts
Lead with "What's new" — Why now? What's changed?
Name your framework — Memorable concepts spread (e.g., "The Innovator's Dilemma")
Include real companies — Anonymized is OK, but real examples work better
Write for the airport — Busy executive on a flight should get value
Cognitive Systems Research
CSR Paper Types
Type
Focus
Length
Original Article
Novel research findings
8,000-12,000 words
Review Article
Comprehensive field synthesis
10,000-15,000 words
Short Communication
Preliminary findings
3,000-5,000 words
Commentary
Response to published work
2,000-4,000 words
CSR Template (the AI assistant Architecture Paper)
# Title: Declarative but Specific## Abstract (200-250 words)**Background.** [Problem context and gap in current systems]
**Objective.** [What this paper presents]
**Method.** [Architecture approach, implementation duration]
**Results.** [Key metrics, qualitative findings]
**Contributions.** [Named concepts introduced]
**Significance.** [Why this matters for cognitive systems]
## Keywords
cognitive architecture; persistent memory; human-AI interaction; [specific terms]
---
## 1. Introduction### 1.1 The Memory Problem in AI Assistants
[Motivating problem: stateless AI, lost context]
### 1.2 Research Questions
RQ1: How can persistent memory improve AI assistance?
RQ2: What architectural patterns support knowledge retention?
RQ3: [Specific question]
### 1.3 Approach Overview
[Brief description of the architecture]
### 1.4 Contributions1. [Architectural contribution]
2. [Empirical contribution from deployment]
3. [Framework/taxonomy contribution]
---
## 2. Theoretical Background### 2.1 Cognitive Architectures
[ACT-R, SOAR, Global Workspace Theory]
### 2.2 Memory Systems in Cognition
[Declarative, procedural, episodic, semantic]
### 2.3 AI Memory Approaches
[RAG, vector databases, context windows]
### 2.4 Gap: Biologically-Inspired Persistent Memory
[What's missing from current approaches]
---
## 3. Architecture Design### 3.1 Design Principles
[Biologically-grounded, modular, scalable]
### 3.2 Memory Types#### 3.2.1 Procedural Memory (.instructions.md)
[How-to knowledge, automatic activation]
#### 3.2.2 Declarative Memory (SKILL.md)
[Domain knowledge, explicit retrieval]
#### 3.2.3 Episodic Memory (.prompt.md)
[Session records, temporal context]
### 3.3 Synaptic Connections
[Connection types, strengths, activation patterns]
### 3.4 Implementation
[Technical stack, file formats, integration]
---
## 4. Longitudinal Deployment### 4.1 Deployment Context
[18+ months, 62+ projects, single user intensive use]
### 4.2 Metrics Collection
[Connection count, skill usage, memory file growth]
### 4.3 Qualitative Observations
[Emergent behaviors, user experience notes]
---
## 5. Results### 5.1 Memory Growth Patterns
[Quantitative: 945+ connections, 47+ memory files]
### 5.2 Cross-Project Knowledge Transfer
[Evidence of knowledge reuse]
### 5.3 Emergent Properties
[Unexpected capabilities]
---
## 6. Discussion### 6.1 Contributions to Cognitive Systems
[Theory extension, practical framework]
### 6.2 Comparison to Prior Architectures
[How this differs from ACT-R, SOAR, etc.]
### 6.3 Limitations
[Single user, specific platform, no controlled study]
### 6.4 Future Research
[Multi-user, formal evaluation, consciousness implications]
---
## 7. Conclusion
[Synthesis of contribution and significance]
## Acknowledgments## References (APA 7 or journal style)
# Title: Philosophical Claim + Context## Abstract (200 words)
[Philosophical question addressed]
[Position taken]
[Argument structure preview]
[Implications for AI development/policy]
---
## 1. Introduction### The Philosophical Problem
[Frame the question in philosophy of mind context]
### Why This Matters Now
[Connect to current AI capabilities]
### Thesis Statement
[Clear articulation of your position]
### Argument Structure
[Roadmap of philosophical moves]
---
## 2. Background: The Debate### 2.1 [Position A in the literature]### 2.2 [Position B in the literature]### 2.3 [Why neither fully succeeds]
---
## 3. [Your Framework/Argument]### 3.1 [First premise with support]### 3.2 [Second premise with support]### 3.3 [Conclusion from premises]
---
## 4. Objections and Replies### 4.1 Objection 1: [Strongest counterargument]**Reply:** [Your response]
### 4.2 Objection 2: [Another challenge]**Reply:** [Your response]
---
## 5. Implications### 5.1 For Philosophy of Mind### 5.2 For AI Development### 5.3 For Ethics/Policy
---
## 6. Conclusion
[Restate thesis, summarize argument, future questions]
## References
# Response to Reviewers
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on our manuscript "[Title]".
We have carefully addressed all comments and believe the paper
is significantly strengthened. Below we detail our responses.
Major changes include:
1. [Summary of major change 1]
2. [Summary of major change 2]
3. [Summary of major change 3]
---
## Response to Reviewer 1### R1.1: "[Direct quote of concern]"
We appreciate this observation. [Brief explanation of how you addressed it].
Changes made:
- Section X, paragraph Y: [quoted new text or description of change]
- [Additional changes if needed]
### R1.2: "[Next concern]"
[Response pattern repeats]
---
## Response to Reviewer 2
[Same pattern]
---
We believe these revisions address all concerns raised. We are
grateful for the opportunity to improve our work.
Sincerely,
[Authors]
This skill is not earning its tokens if drafts produced following its guidance fail peer review on structural grounds (section ordering, citation format, abstract structure) the skill explicitly addresses
Stale if citation style guidance conflicts with current APA/IEEE/Chicago style guides
Wrong if the academic conventions it documents are field-specific but presented as universal
