Menu
Skills in this repository
SkillsMP has collected 3,455 skills from brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills. Open a skill to review its source and details.
brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-SkillsShowing 40 of 3,455 collected skills.
Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a Journal of Consumer Research (JCR) manuscript — ScholarOne portal, anonymization for double-anonymized review, the 60-page cap, the 200-word abstract, the 300-word Consumer Relevance and Contribution…
Use when building the conceptual core of a Journal of Consumer Research (JCR) manuscript — the psychological process and hypotheses for an experiments paper, or the interpretive theorization for a Consumer Culture Theory (CCT) paper. Builds the mechanism; it…
Use when deciding which jmr-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) manuscript. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills, and classifies the…
Use when planning a revision and drafting the point-by-point response letter for a Journal of Marketing (JM) R&R — prioritizing the Coeditor's decisive concerns, strengthening substantive novelty and managerial relevance, and keeping the double-anonymized…
Use after a MIS Quarterly revision decision to plan the revision and draft the point-by-point response — prioritizing the Senior Editor's letter, addressing tradition-specific rigor concerns (identification, validity/CMB, artifact evaluation,…
Use when responding to an Operations Research (OR) decision letter — writing the point-by-point response, closing proof gaps, adding baselines/instances, and passing the ORJournal code/data reproducibility review across a revision cycle. Drafts the revision…
Use when navigating the Operations Research (OR) editorial process — the departmental area-editor routing, the soft double-anonymous model with asymmetric transparency, decision types, and how to read a decision letter from the handling Area Editor. Explains…
Use when results exist but the accounting contribution is thin or implicit for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — turning findings into an explicit statement of what the field now knows, with credible bounds and implications. Frames the contribution;…
Use when the front end of a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript reads as gap-spotting or an incremental database extension — positioning the paper inside a live accounting conversation against the closest TAR/JAR/JAE/CAR work. Positions the contribution;…
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…
Use when the economic mechanism, analytical model, or predictions are the bottleneck for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — articulating why an accounting effect occurs and deriving testable predictions or model propositions. Builds the argument; it…
Use when choosing or sharpening a research question for a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — testing whether the question is contribution-driven, identifiable with accounting data, and a fit for TAR versus JAR/JAE or a specialist AAA section journal.…
Use when polishing the prose of a The Accounting Review (TAR) manuscript — front-loading the result, writing for an accounting audience, enforcing Chicago Manual of Style house conventions, the 150-word abstract, and full author anonymization for double-blind…
Use when packaging NeurIPS code, data, models, demos, benchmarks, or other research artifacts for anonymous review, reproducibility, public release, or MLRC-style artifact scrutiny.
Use when drafting or triaging NeurIPS OpenReview author responses, rebuttals, and discussion-period replies under the current year's response mechanics and double-blind constraints.
Use when preparing accepted NeurIPS papers for camera-ready upload, de-anonymization, final checklist, code/data release, OpenReview metadata, and post-acceptance obligations.
Use when positioning a NeurIPS submission against current-cycle ML literature, contemporaneous work, preprints, neighboring conferences, and the exact technical delta from prior methods.
Use when explaining or diagnosing the NeurIPS main-track review process, including OpenReview, reviewer and AC roles, contribution-type review, ethics flags, reciprocal reviewing, discussion, and LLM-review policy.
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.
Use when deciding whether a paper belongs at NeurIPS, choosing main-track versus another NeurIPS track, selecting contribution type, or rerouting to a better AI/ML venue.
Use when articulating what is new in a Journal of Labor Economics (JOLE) manuscript for a general labor-economics audience — the marginal contribution, the labor lesson, and why a labor economist outside the subfield should care. Frames the pitch; it does not…
Use when drafting a response letter to a Journal of Labor Economics (JOLE) revise-and-resubmit — addressing single-blind labor referees point by point under the journal's word economy. Strategy and structure; it does not run new estimations for you.
Use when assembling the data and code deposit for an accepted Journal of Labor Economics (JOLE) paper — the JOLE Dataverse Repository, the AER data-availability policy (adopted Feb 2009), and proprietary-data handling. Builds the replication package; it does…
Use when deciding whether a research question fits the Journal of Labor Economics (JOLE) — a general-interest labor-economics quarterly — and how to frame it so it matters to labor economists broadly, not just one niche. Tests fit; it does not run the…
Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for a Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) manuscript via ScholarOne — format, anonymization, files, and cover letter. Checks readiness; it does not write the paper or the rebuttal.
Use when turning results into an explicit theoretical contribution for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — the "what new theory do we learn?" statement and the discussion section. Frames the contribution and implications; it does not build the…
Use when the front end of an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript needs to engage the right literatures and stake a clear position in an ongoing theoretical conversation. Positions the paper among theories; it does not derive the hypotheses…
Use when drafting the revision and response letter after an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) revise-and-resubmit — structuring point-by-point responses to the action editor and reviewers across a multi-round developmental process. Drafts the response after…
Use when you need to understand or set expectations for the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) editorial and peer-review process — desk review, the developmental multi-round R&R culture, and reading a decision letter. Explains the process and how to read…
Use when the theoretical argument and hypotheses are the bottleneck for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — building a mechanism and deriving testable hypotheses a priori. Constructs the theory; it does not run the analysis (amj-data-analysis)…
Use when scoping or sanity-checking a research question for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — fit, theory-drivenness, and feasibility. Decides whether the idea can earn a theoretical contribution; it does not build the theory itself (use…
Use for full-manuscript prose polish of an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — front-loading the argument, active voice, structure, and AOM house style. Polishes language and structure; it does not create the theoretical contribution…
Use when articulating and differentiating the theoretical contribution of an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — showing precisely what is NEW versus prior theory and why it matters. Frames the contribution; it does NOT build the theory…
Use when stress-testing the LOGIC of an Academy of Management Review (AMR) theory manuscript — checking logical coherence, running thought experiments and counterfactuals, addressing alternative explanations and disconfirming cases, and verifying each…
Use when you must identify which theoretical conversation an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript enters and how it "challenges and extends" that conversation. Positions the argument within a literature; it does NOT summarize the field (AMR punishes…
Use when choosing and applying a theory-construction method for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — building constructs, defining their domain, specifying relationships, articulating the underlying logic/mechanisms, and setting boundary…
Use when writing the response document for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) Revise & Resubmit — structuring point-by-point replies that show the theory was genuinely strengthened, not just defended. Drafts the response; revise the manuscript's theory…
Use when building the conceptual exhibits of an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — process models, 2x2 typologies, multi-level frameworks, and propositions tables that carry theoretical work. These are CONCEPTUAL figures, NOT data plots; AMR has…
Use when building the actual theory for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — turning a positioned puzzle into defined constructs, explicit relationships, propositions, and boundary conditions. Constructs the theory; it does NOT stress-test the…
Use when the theoretical puzzle is the bottleneck for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — deciding whether an idea is theory-worthy and AMR-fit before any theorizing begins. Frames the puzzle; it does NOT build constructs (that is…