「draft」の検索結果

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Agricultural Systems (AgSy) via the current Elsevier submission path / Editorial Manager — article-type selection, abstract <= 250 words, Highlights, graphical abstract, CRediT and declaration-of-interest statements, funding/AI disclosures, reference style, and data/code/model availability. Final checks; it does not draft content.

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 an American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) conditional-accept decision — addressing the editor's letter within the short window, usually without a second referee round. Drafts a concise, decisive response and revision plan; it does not redo the analysis (see aeri-robustness / aeri-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 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 running the final pre-submission preflight for American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) via the AEA/ScholarOne submission system — the word-count and exhibit-count gates, abstract limit, fees, author metadata, declarations, and the AEA Data and Code Availability Policy. Final checks; it does not draft content.

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 running the final pre-submission preflight for the American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (AEJ: Macro) via the AEA submission system — membership-scaled fee, JEL codes, PDF and length rules, ≤100-word abstract, disclosure statements, and data/code readiness. Final checks; it does not draft content.

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 drafting the cover letter for an Advanced Materials submission, whose core job is to convince the editor that the work is a genuine materials advance of broad impact worthy of the journal. Argues the impact case; does not fix the science or format the manuscript.

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 an American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (AEJ: Applied) decision letter arrives (R&R or conditional accept) and a response-to-referees letter plus a revision plan must be drafted. Plans and structures the response; it does not run the new analysis (aeja-identification / aeja-robustness) or the submission preflight.

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 running the final pre-submission preflight for an American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (AEJ: Applied) manuscript via the AEA ScholarOne system — single-blind review front matter, JEL codes, submission and publication fees, format, disclosures, and AEA data-policy readiness. Final checks; it does not draft content.

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 running the final pre-submission preflight for AEJ: Economic Policy via the AEA online submission system — single-blind review front matter, JEL codes, submission and publication fees, format, the Data and Code Availability Statement, and disclosure. Final checks; it does not draft content.

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 or revising the prose of an AEJ: Economic Policy manuscript — especially the abstract and introduction — to translate causal estimates into a clear policy takeaway without overclaiming. Shapes the policy-first narrative and house style; it does not design identification or build the welfare model.

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 ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) rebuttal — turning multiple anonymous reviews into one focused, anonymous response that fixes factual errors first, adds small confirmatory cross-modal results, concedes calibratedly, and stays inside policy (anonymous, no new external links), written for the area chair who decides.

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 judging whether a manuscript's landing point is an ACCOUNTING issue (accounting information / disclosure / audit / standards) versus a corporate-finance mechanism, before drafting for 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research). Use this to decide fit and to re-route finance-mechanism papers to a finance journal before any other acr-* skill.

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 an ACM CCS rebuttal during the HotCRP author-response window, covering threat-model defenses, adaptive-attack objections, ethics and disclosure questions, anonymity constraints, adversarial reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused replies aimed at the meta-reviewer.

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 you need to understand the Academy of Management Review (AMR) developmental, multi-round review and interpret a decision letter focused on theoretical novelty and logical soundness. Explains the process and decision types; it does NOT draft the response document (that is amr-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 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 you need to understand how Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) evaluates a manuscript — triage by the joint Editors-in-Chief, double-anonymized review by interdisciplinary referees, the meaning of each decision type, and how to read the editor's letter. Explains the process; it does not draft the revision response (aos-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 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 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 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。