「review-process」の検索結果

Review Apache Pinot change scope and process when assessing PR descriptions, reverts, retries, or compatibility notes.

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。

Establish review gates — criteria, checkpoints, and approval flow. Use when work ships without consistent review. For running one individual session, use `design-critique`.

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 American Anthropologist (AA) evaluates a manuscript — editorial screening, anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, the four-field editorial board, decision categories, and how section choice shapes the path. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

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 AISTATS peer review, OpenReview review release, author-reviewer discussion, reviewer volunteer expectations, reviewer confidentiality, decision criteria, meta-review dynamics, the statistician-heavy reviewer pool, and PMLR 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 to understand how Agricultural Systems (AgSy) evaluates a manuscript — single-anonymized peer review with a minimum of two reviewers and an editor decision, desk screening for fit and systems content, what reviewers weigh, and the rapid-review track for Perspectives. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

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 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 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。

当你需要理解《电子学报》(Acta Electronica Sinica, AES) 审稿流程、稿件状态与时限时使用。覆盖投稿受理→编辑初审→双盲外审(同行评议)→复审→主编/编委会终审→退修与再审轮次→录用的多级审理链路，各阶段可能的决定(录用/退修/退稿)、6 个月未答复红线、如何解读稿件状态、如何礼貌催稿、以及本刊与英文姊妹刊 Chinese Journal of Electronics 的分流关系。帮助电子/信息/通信方向作者对《电子学报》的审理节奏与决策点建立准确预期，合理规划投稿与修回。

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。

当你在需要理解《自动化学报》(Acta Automatica Sinica, AAS) 的双盲三审制审稿流程、各环节时间进度与作者可施加的杠杆时调用。建模编辑初审→双盲外审→退修/复审(多轮)→主编终审的完整链路，说明作者承诺前置、双盲对作者的约束、退修期限与重新送审、状态查询，帮助作者在 Acta Automatica Sinica 的评审各节点做出正确动作、管理预期并避免流程性失误。

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 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 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 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).

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 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.

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 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.

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 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 decisions; it does not draft the response letter (amj-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。

Establish design review gates with criteria, checklists, and approval workflows.

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。

Detect review findings that belong in CI/lint/formatter rather than human 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 this skill to set proper expectations on how a DataQ challenge is actually reviewed. Covers state vs federal authority, typical timelines, and common review 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。