「reviewer」の検索結果

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when preparing AISTATS supplementary material, appendices, proof details, code/data archives, simulation scripts, additional tables, and anonymized artifacts under deadline, size, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion constraints, including how to split a theory-plus-experiments paper between body and supplement.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when packaging AISTATS code, data, proofs, simulation scripts, notebooks, random seeds, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or public post-acceptance artifacts, even when there is no separate artifact badge. Covers what statistically minded AISTATS reviewers inspect first and how to make Monte Carlo studies turnkey.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when positioning an AISTATS submission against AI, machine-learning, statistics, and uncertainty literature, including arXiv preprints, workshop versions, concurrent submissions, prior conference versions, PMLR archival status, and the two-community citation coverage that AISTATS reviewers expect.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when planning an AISTATS project timeline from venue fit through abstract submission, full-paper upload, supplementary material, review release, author-reviewer discussion, decision, camera-ready, PMLR publication, registration, presentation, and artifact release, with backward-planning offsets for theory-plus-experiments papers.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when responding to Advanced Materials reviewer reports and an editor's decision — major or minor revision, or a rejection with a resubmission or transfer path. Structures the response and the manuscript changes; does not perform the underlying new experiments.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when understanding and navigating Administrative Science Quarterly's (ASQ) developmental, multi-round review process — decision types, reviewer/editor roles, and what each stage expects. Explains the process; it does not draft the response letter (see asq-rebuttal).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when choosing suggested and opposed referees for an Advanced Materials submission and pre-empting the objections materials reviewers most often raise. Plans referee selection and objection defense; does not write the manuscript or the rebuttal.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when strengthening the reproducibility of an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) paper or preparing for the ACM MM Reproducibility track and ACM artifact badging — capturing environments, media/data access, seeds, and multimodal pipelines so an independent reviewer can rebuild results and reach Artifacts Evaluated or Results Reproduced badges.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when drafting the response to an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) R&R after the manuscript has been revised — structuring the response letter and handling reviewer/editor comments. Drafts the response; it does not perform the underlying revisions (do those first).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when preparing ACM CCS appendices and supplementary material, including the ethics considerations appendix, protocol transcripts, formal proofs, measurement tables, and anonymized supporting material under the 12-page body limit, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion constraints for a security paper.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when responding to 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) reviewer reports / an R&R — drafting a point-by-point response letter and 修改说明 that addresses accounting-measure construction, institutional/standard accuracy, identification, and information-mechanism concerns, while keeping the revision anonymous. Use only after the manuscript itself has been revised.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when reasoning about how an ACL paper travels through ACL Rolling Review and conference commitment, covering reviewer and area-chair roles, meta-reviews, the commitment decision by senior area chairs and program chairs, Findings versus main-conference outcomes, ethics review escalation, and resubmission strategy across cycles.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) revise-and-resubmit arrives — planning revisions that may include recoding field data, new experimental conditions, or deepened theorizing, and drafting the point-by-point response to an interdisciplinary reviewer panel. Drafts the response; it does not run new analysis (aos-data-analysis) or the final preflight (aos-submission).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when drafting an ACL author response inside an ACL Rolling Review cycle on OpenReview, covering the response window before meta-review, reviewer discussion dynamics, score-change strategy, flagging review issues to the area chair, anonymity rules, and deciding between responding now versus revising for a later ARR cycle.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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 revisions; it does not interpret the decision letter (amj-review-process).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。