8,919 件 ・ 関連度順
Use when anticipating referee objections or calibrating review expectations for an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) manuscript before submission. Pre-empts the objections theory referees raise and reads the editorial process; it does not draft the response letter (see aejmic-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 the causal identification argument is the bottleneck for an American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (AEJ: Applied) manuscript — RCT, difference-in-differences/event study, regression discontinuity, IV, or shift-share. Stress-tests the data-to-causal-estimate mapping to the AEJ: Applied credibility bar before exhibits are finalized; it does not write the prose or build the package.
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 anticipating the objections a sophisticated American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (AEJ: Applied) referee will raise, so a manuscript pre-empts them before submission or addresses them in revision. Plans the defense; it does not draft the response letter (aeja-rebuttal) or run the submission preflight (aeja-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 anticipating the objections referees and coeditors will raise on an American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (AEJ: Macro) manuscript, and calibrating desk-reject and revision odds, before submission. Pre-empts pushback and plans the review; it does not draft the post-decision response letter (use aejmac-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 the credibility of the causal evaluation of a policy is the bottleneck for an AEJ: Economic Policy manuscript — DID/event study, IV, RDD/bunching, or RCT of a program. Stress-tests the quasi-experimental policy-evaluation design to the AEJ: Policy bar before exhibits are finalized; it does not build the welfare mapping or write exhibits.
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 American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (AEJ: Applied) manuscript's headline estimate must be shown to survive specification, sample, and inference choices before submission or in an R&R. Builds the robustness suite a sophisticated referee expects; it does not establish the primary identification (aeja-identification) or format the exhibits (aeja-tables-figures).
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 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.
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 framing or sharpening a topic for 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) — turning a generic "X affects Y" empirical idea into an accounting contribution anchored in China's institutional setting, accounting theory, and standard-setting / practice relevance. Use before literature review.
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 for the pre-submission preflight to 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) — checking footnote (当页下注) conventions, the 著者—出版年制 reference style, abstract/keyword limits, article length, the online-only submission system via the Accounting Society of China site, double-blind anonymity, and document hygiene. Use right before submitting; verify every rule against the journal's current 投稿指南.
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 deciding whether a project fits ACL versus EMNLP, NAACL, EACL, TACL, Computational Linguistics, COLM, or an ML venue, covering contribution typing for NLP work, long-versus-short paper choice, the annual theme track, Findings-tier expectations, and sharpening the computational-linguistics framing before writing starts.
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 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 FIRST (amr-theory-development / amr-data-analysis) before writing the letter.
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 constructing or auditing accounting measures for 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) — discretionary accruals (modified Jones), real earnings management (Roychowdhury), conservatism (Basu / C-Score), comparability, disclosure indices, audit-quality and tax-avoidance proxies — so each measure is built transparently and reproducibly. Use before identification.
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 writing or verifying the institutional / accounting-standard / regulatory background for a 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) manuscript — getting standard clauses, regulatory rules, and effective dates exactly right, since precise institutional detail is a defining bar of this journal. Use before measurement and identification.
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 auditing an ACL submission before an ACL Rolling Review cycle deadline, covering long/short paper page budgets, the mandatory Limitations section, Responsible NLP checklist, anonymized PDFs and supplements, preprint declarations, dual-submission rules, resubmission linking, and ARR desk-reject triggers on OpenReview.
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 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 amr-theory-development) or design any empirical study (AMR has none).
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 the empirical identification strategy is the bottleneck for a 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) manuscript — exogenous standard / regulatory changes (event study, DID), PSM, Heckman, IV — and you need to stress-test the design before drafting tables. Prefers standard/regulatory shocks as the cleanest accounting identification source.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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).
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。
Review generated or changed WooCommerce code — extensions, payment and shipping integrations, checkout customizations, and order/product logic — before it ships. Best used reactively after an agent writes, edits, or reviews code touching WooCommerce APIs: wc_get_order, wc_get_orders, wc_get_product, WC() cart or session, woocommerce_* hooks, Store API endpoints, payment gateways, order or product meta, HPOS, subscriptions, or bookings. Use on 'review this Woo plugin', 'is this HPOS compatible', or after tasks like 'write a WooCommerce extension', 'add a checkout field', 'hook into the order flow', or 'update stock'. Enforces HPOS-safe order access, CRUD over direct meta, feature-compatibility declarations, server-side checkout validation, money-handling discipline, and hooks over template overrides. DO NOT USE for WordPress code without WooCommerce APIs (use wp-guard), generic code review (use clean-code-guard), test review (use test-guard), or store configuration and admin-screen questions.
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。
Review generated or changed WordPress code — plugins, themes, and blocks — before it ships. Best used reactively after an agent writes, edits, or reviews code touching WordPress APIs: add_action/add_filter, shortcodes, meta boxes, AJAX handlers, REST routes, WP_Query or $wpdb, widgets, or WP-CLI commands. Use on 'review this plugin', 'is this safe to ship', 'make this translatable', 'speed up this query', or after tasks like 'write a plugin' or 'add an endpoint/shortcode/meta box'. Enforces escaping and sanitization, nonces plus capability checks, prepared database queries, core-API-first development, translation-ready strings, and query/caching discipline. DO NOT USE for WooCommerce-specific order, product, or checkout logic (use woo-guard), non-WordPress PHP, generic code quality review (use clean-code-guard), test code review (use test-guard), server or hosting configuration, or conceptual WordPress questions.
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。
Find out why the tests pass but the app is broken. Catches false greens: a green suite over a feature that does not work, a mocked API standing in for a real one, an assertion that holds no matter what the app does, a click handler wired to nothing. Use when the suite is green and the user says it is broken, when a test never fails, when coverage looks fine but bugs still ship, or before trusting a passing run you did not watch.
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。