Awesome-Journal-Skills

Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.

Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.

Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.

Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

Use when explaining or planning around AAAI's two-phase review process, Phase 1 rejection risk, Phase 2 additional reviews, AI-assisted review pilot, author feedback, SPC/AC discussion, and final decisions.

Use when auditing an AAAI main technical track submission for OpenReview readiness, double-blind anonymity, page limits, reproducibility checklist, supplementary material, author limits, multiple-submission policy, and AAAI AI-use policy compliance.

Use when organizing AAAI supplementary material, including the technical appendix, multimedia appendix, and code/data ZIPs, while respecting that AAAI supplements are due with the paper, treated as immutable after submission, must stay double-blind, and should never hide main-paper-critical evidence from reviewers who skim the appendix.

Use when deciding whether a project is a strong AAAI submission across its broad AI scope, should be reframed or routed to a dedicated track such as AI for Social Impact or AI Alignment, or should instead go to IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, AISTATS, UAI, ACL, CVPR, KDD, CHI, ICRA, or another specialist venue.

Use when planning an AAAI project timeline from topic selection through abstract, OpenReview submission, two-phase review, rebuttal, decision, camera-ready, registration, presentation, and public artifact release.

Use when revising an AAAI manuscript for broad-AI-audience fit, a first-page contribution statement legible to non-specialist Phase-1 reviewers, two-column readability, concise novelty claims, reproducibility-checklist alignment, hedged limitations and ethics, and policy-aware framing of AI-system and capability claims.

Use when packaging AAMAS multiagent code, environments, opponent and population sets, random seeds, game definitions, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or a public post-acceptance release, even without a separate artifact badge, so that game-theory and MARL reviewers can inspect and re-run the interaction claims.

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.

Use when preparing an accepted AAMAS paper for the IFAAMAS open-access camera-ready, covering author de-anonymization, proceedings metadata, two-column reflow of game figures and learning curves, resolving rebuttal-stage promises, registration, in-person presentation, and the public code and environment release for a multiagent paper.

Use when designing or auditing AAMAS experiments - self-play and population-based training, opponent selection, equilibrium and regret metrics, game-theoretic simulations, ablations, seeds, hyperparameters, compute, and claim-to-evidence fit - with emphasis on experiments that probe the interaction rather than chase a single-agent leaderboard.

Use when positioning an AAMAS submission against multiagent, game-theory, and reinforcement-learning literature spread across AAMAS, AAAI, IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, EC, and JAAMAS, including arXiv and workshop versions, concurrent submissions, prior conference versions, and the cross-community citation coverage AAMAS reviewers expect.

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.

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.

Use when auditing an AAMAS main-track submission for OpenReview readiness, the 8-page-plus-references limit, the full-paper versus 2-page extended-abstract choice, double-blind anonymity, the supplementary zip cap, track fit across the AAAI/JAAMAS/Blue Sky tracks, dual-submission rules, and desk-reject triggers before upload.

Use when preparing AAMAS supplementary material - proofs, extended game and mechanism definitions, extra multiagent experiments, opponent-set details, and the anonymized artifact zip - under the size cap, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion limits, including how to split a game-theory-plus-experiments paper across the 8-page body and the supplement.

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.

Use when planning an AAMAS project timeline from venue fit through abstract, full-paper or extended-abstract upload, supplementary material, the double-blind rebuttal, decision, IFAAMAS camera-ready, registration, and presentation, with track-specific deadlines and backward-planning offsets for a game-theory-plus-experiments paper.

Use when revising an AAMAS paper so the interaction contribution leads the first page, the solution concept or incentive property is named, the game and agents are legible, claims are paired with proofs or multiagent experiments, the argument fits eight two-column pages plus references, and the wording stays double-blind.

Use when working with the Associate Editor and Editor of an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — scope alignment after a proposal is invited, what review-article referees evaluate, and revision expectations. Plans the interaction; it does not run the portal preflight (amann-submission) or draft the response letter (amann-revision).

Use when appraising the cumulative evidence and ensuring balance in an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — weighing conflicting findings by credibility, steelmanning rival schools, and handling the author's own work even-handedly. Audits evidence quality and fairness; it does not design the framework (amann-organizing-framework) or build exhibits (amann-tables-figures).

Use when systematically gathering, coding, and synthesizing a management/organization literature for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the search-and-coverage methodology and the choice of narrative vs. systematic vs. bibliometric integration. Builds the corpus and synthesis notes; it does not impose the organizing spine (amann-organizing-framework) or write prose.

Use when building the novel integrative framework that an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review must deliver — the theory-advancing "new way of seeing the field" that is the acceptance bar, not a catalog of papers. Designs the spine; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or appraise evidence balance (amann-evidence-standards).

Use when writing the short proposal that gates an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the ≤5-page, four-heading proposal submitted under the twice-yearly deadlines before any full review is invited. Builds the proposal; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or run the portal preflight (amann-submission).

Use when planning around the two-step proposal→invited-review process of the Academy of Management Annals (Annals) — the twice-yearly proposal cadence, double-blind proposal review, the editor-only full-review development, and timelines. Explains the process; it does not write the proposal (amann-proposal-framing) or run the portal preflight (amann-submission).

Use when responding to an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) proposal decision or full-review referee letter — framework/attitude asks, coverage gaps, balance complaints, and accessibility. Drafts the response letter and revision plan; it does not run the portal preflight (amann-submission) or redesign the framework from scratch (amann-organizing-framework).

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) proposal or invited full review via the Manuscript Central portal — proposal-vs-invited-review route, deadlines, formatting, CV, and anonymity. Final checks; it does not draft content.

Use when building exhibits for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the signature framework figure, who-studied-what synthesis tables, and search/coverage exhibits that summarize across a literature. Designs review exhibits; it does not produce original-estimate regression tables (an Annals review reports no new data of its own).

Use when judging whether a management/organization literature is an Academy of Management Annals (Annals)-scale review topic — mature, important, fragmented, and integrable into a new framework — rather than a narrow review. Decides fit and frames the review's animating problem; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or write the proposal (amann-proposal-framing).

Use when deciding which amann-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a comprehensive review article from topic selection through revision for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.

Use when revising an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review for the house voice — authoritative, integrative, agenda-setting "reviews with an attitude," with a strong problem-first opening and a contribution-stating abstract. Polishes prose and structure; it does not design the framework (amann-organizing-framework) or run the submission preflight (amann-submission).

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 original theory (amj-theory-development) or run the analysis (amj-data-analysis).

Use when running and reporting the statistical analysis for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — measurement validity, common-method bias, the right estimator (HLM, SEM, panel, experiments), endogeneity, and robustness. Executes and reports the analysis; it does not design the study (amj-methods) or frame the contribution (amj-contribution-framing).

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 (amj-theory-development) or write the contribution paragraph (amj-contribution-framing).

Use when the research design and method are the bottleneck for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — matching design (archival, survey, experiment, multi-method, field) and level of analysis to the theoretical question. Designs the study; it does not run the estimation or validity checks (amj-data-analysis).