EvoScientist 0.0.1.dev1__py3-none-any.whl

EvoScientist/skills/ml-paper-writing/references/reviewer-guidelines.md

@@ -0,0 +1,367 @@
+# Reviewer Guidelines & Evaluation Criteria
+
+This reference documents how reviewers evaluate papers at major ML/AI conferences, helping authors anticipate and address reviewer concerns.
+
+---
+
+## Contents
+
+- [Universal Evaluation Dimensions](#universal-evaluation-dimensions)
+- [NeurIPS Reviewer Guidelines](#neurips-reviewer-guidelines)
+- [ICML Reviewer Guidelines](#icml-reviewer-guidelines)
+- [ICLR Reviewer Guidelines](#iclr-reviewer-guidelines)
+- [ACL Reviewer Guidelines](#acl-reviewer-guidelines)
+- [What Makes Reviews Strong](#what-makes-reviews-strong)
+- [Common Reviewer Concerns](#common-reviewer-concerns)
+- [How to Address Reviewer Feedback](#how-to-address-reviewer-feedback)
+
+---
+
+## Universal Evaluation Dimensions
+
+All major ML conferences assess papers across four core dimensions:
+
+### 1. Quality (Technical Soundness)
+
+**What reviewers ask:**
+- Are claims well-supported by theoretical analysis or experimental results?
+- Are the proofs correct? Are the experiments properly controlled?
+- Are baselines appropriate and fairly compared?
+- Is the methodology sound?
+
+**How to ensure high quality:**
+- Include complete proofs (main paper or appendix with sketches)
+- Use appropriate baselines (not strawmen)
+- Report variance/error bars with methodology
+- Document hyperparameter selection process
+
+### 2. Clarity (Writing & Organization)
+
+**What reviewers ask:**
+- Is the paper clearly written and well organized?
+- Can an expert in the field reproduce the results?
+- Is notation consistent? Are terms defined?
+- Is the paper self-contained?
+
+**How to ensure clarity:**
+- Use consistent terminology throughout
+- Define all notation at first use
+- Include reproducibility details (appendix acceptable)
+- Have non-authors read before submission
+
+### 3. Significance (Impact & Importance)
+
+**What reviewers ask:**
+- Are the results impactful for the community?
+- Will others build upon this work?
+- Does it address an important problem?
+- What is the potential for real-world impact?
+
+**How to demonstrate significance:**
+- Clearly articulate the problem's importance
+- Connect to broader research themes
+- Discuss potential applications
+- Compare to existing approaches meaningfully
+
+### 4. Originality (Novelty & Contribution)
+
+**What reviewers ask:**
+- Does this provide new insights?
+- How does it differ from prior work?
+- Is the contribution non-trivial?
+
+**Key insight from NeurIPS guidelines:**
+> "Originality does not necessarily require introducing an entirely new method. Papers that provide novel insights from evaluating existing approaches or shed light on why methods succeed can also be highly original."
+
+---
+
+## NeurIPS Reviewer Guidelines
+
+### Scoring System (1-6 Scale)
+
+| Score | Label | Description |
+|-------|-------|-------------|
+| **6** | Strong Accept | Groundbreaking, flawless work; top 2-3% of submissions |
+| **5** | Accept | Technically solid, high impact; would benefit the community |
+| **4** | Borderline Accept | Solid work with limited evaluation; leans accept |
+| **3** | Borderline Reject | Solid but weaknesses outweigh strengths; leans reject |
+| **2** | Reject | Technical flaws or weak evaluation |
+| **1** | Strong Reject | Well-known results or unaddressed ethics concerns |
+
+### Reviewer Instructions
+
+Reviewers are explicitly instructed to:
+
+1. **Evaluate the paper as written** - not what it could be with revisions
+2. **Provide constructive feedback** - 3-5 actionable points
+3. **Not penalize honest limitations** - acknowledging weaknesses is encouraged
+4. **Assess reproducibility** - can the work be verified?
+5. **Consider ethical implications** - potential misuse or harm
+
+### What Reviewers Should Avoid
+
+- Superficial, uninformed reviews
+- Demanding unreasonable additional experiments
+- Penalizing authors for honest limitation acknowledgment
+- Rejecting for missing citations to reviewer's own work
+
+### Timeline (NeurIPS 2025)
+
+- Bidding: May 17-21
+- Reviewing period: May 29 - July 2
+- Author rebuttals: July 24-30
+- Discussion period: July 31 - August 13
+- Final notifications: September 18
+
+---
+
+## ICML Reviewer Guidelines
+
+### Review Structure
+
+ICML reviewers provide:
+
+1. **Summary** - Brief description of contributions
+2. **Strengths** - Positive aspects
+3. **Weaknesses** - Areas for improvement
+4. **Questions** - Clarifications for authors
+5. **Limitations** - Assessment of stated limitations
+6. **Ethics** - Any concerns
+7. **Overall Score** - Recommendation
+
+### Scoring Guidelines
+
+ICML uses a similar 1-6 scale with calibration:
+- Top 25% of accepted papers: Score 5-6
+- Typical accepted paper: Score 4-5
+- Borderline: Score 3-4
+- Clear reject: Score 1-2
+
+### Key Evaluation Points
+
+1. **Reproducibility** - Are there enough details?
+2. **Experimental rigor** - Multiple seeds, proper baselines?
+3. **Writing quality** - Clear, organized, well-structured?
+4. **Novelty** - Non-trivial contribution?
+
+---
+
+## ICLR Reviewer Guidelines
+
+### OpenReview Process
+
+ICLR uses OpenReview with:
+- Public reviews (after acceptance decisions)
+- Author responses visible to reviewers
+- Discussion between reviewers and ACs
+
+### Scoring
+
+ICLR reviews include:
+- **Soundness**: 1-4 scale
+- **Presentation**: 1-4 scale
+- **Contribution**: 1-4 scale
+- **Overall**: 1-10 scale
+- **Confidence**: 1-5 scale
+
+### Unique ICLR Considerations
+
+1. **LLM Disclosure** - Reviewers assess whether LLM use is properly disclosed
+2. **Reproducibility** - Emphasis on code availability
+3. **Reciprocal Reviewing** - Authors must also serve as reviewers
+
+---
+
+## ACL Reviewer Guidelines
+
+### ACL-Specific Criteria
+
+ACL adds NLP-specific evaluation:
+
+1. **Linguistic soundness** - Are linguistic claims accurate?
+2. **Resource documentation** - Are datasets/models properly documented?
+3. **Multilingual consideration** - If applicable, is language diversity addressed?
+
+### Limitations Section
+
+ACL specifically requires a Limitations section. Reviewers check:
+- Are limitations honest and comprehensive?
+- Do limitations undermine core claims?
+- Are potential negative impacts addressed?
+
+### Ethics Review
+
+ACL has a dedicated ethics review process for:
+- Dual-use concerns
+- Data privacy issues
+- Bias and fairness implications
+
+---
+
+## What Makes Reviews Strong
+
+### Following Daniel Dennett's Rules
+
+Good reviewers follow these principles:
+
+1. **Re-express the position fairly** - Show you understand the paper
+2. **List agreements** - Acknowledge what works well
+3. **List what you learned** - Credit the contribution
+4. **Only then critique** - After establishing understanding
+
+### Review Structure Best Practices
+
+**Strong Review Structure:**
+```
+Summary (1 paragraph):
+- What the paper does
+- Main contribution claimed
+
+Strengths (3-5 bullets):
+- Specific positive aspects
+- Why these matter
+
+Weaknesses (3-5 bullets):
+- Specific concerns
+- Why these matter
+- Suggestions for addressing
+
+Questions (2-4 items):
+- Clarifications needed
+- Things that would change assessment
+
+Minor Issues (optional):
+- Typos, unclear sentences
+- Formatting issues
+
+Overall Assessment:
+- Clear recommendation with reasoning
+```
+
+---
+
+## Common Reviewer Concerns
+
+### Technical Concerns
+
+| Concern | How to Pre-empt |
+|---------|-----------------|
+| "Baselines too weak" | Use state-of-the-art baselines, cite recent work |
+| "Missing ablations" | Include systematic ablation study |
+| "No error bars" | Report std dev/error, multiple runs |
+| "Hyperparameters not tuned" | Document tuning process, search ranges |
+| "Claims not supported" | Ensure every claim has evidence |
+
+### Novelty Concerns
+
+| Concern | How to Pre-empt |
+|---------|-----------------|
+| "Incremental contribution" | Clearly articulate what's new vs prior work |
+| "Similar to [paper X]" | Explicitly compare to X in Related Work |
+| "Straightforward extension" | Highlight non-obvious aspects |
+
+### Clarity Concerns
+
+| Concern | How to Pre-empt |
+|---------|-----------------|
+| "Hard to follow" | Use clear structure, signposting |
+| "Notation inconsistent" | Review all notation, create notation table |
+| "Missing details" | Include reproducibility appendix |
+| "Figures unclear" | Self-contained captions, proper sizing |
+
+### Significance Concerns
+
+| Concern | How to Pre-empt |
+|---------|-----------------|
+| "Limited impact" | Discuss broader implications |
+| "Narrow evaluation" | Evaluate on multiple benchmarks |
+| "Only works in restricted setting" | Acknowledge scope, explain why still valuable |
+
+---
+
+## How to Address Reviewer Feedback
+
+### Rebuttal Best Practices
+
+**Do:**
+- Thank reviewers for their time
+- Address each concern specifically
+- Provide evidence (new experiments if possible)
+- Be concise—reviewers are busy
+- Acknowledge valid criticisms
+
+**Don't:**
+- Be defensive or dismissive
+- Make promises you can't keep
+- Ignore difficult criticisms
+- Write excessively long rebuttals
+- Argue about subjective assessments
+
+### Rebuttal Template
+
+```markdown
+We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful feedback.
+
+## Reviewer 1
+
+**R1-Q1: [Quoted concern]**
+[Direct response with evidence]
+
+**R1-Q2: [Quoted concern]**
+[Direct response with evidence]
+
+## Reviewer 2
+
+...
+
+## Summary of Changes
+If accepted, we will:
+1. [Specific change]
+2. [Specific change]
+3. [Specific change]
+```
+
+### When to Accept Criticism
+
+Some reviewer feedback should simply be accepted:
+- Valid technical errors
+- Missing important related work
+- Unclear explanations
+- Missing experimental details
+
+Acknowledge these gracefully: "The reviewer is correct that... We will revise to..."
+
+### When to Push Back
+
+You can respectfully disagree when:
+- Reviewer misunderstood the paper
+- Requested experiments are out of scope
+- Criticism is factually incorrect
+
+Frame disagreements constructively: "We appreciate this perspective. However, [explanation]..."
+
+---
+
+## Pre-Submission Reviewer Simulation
+
+Before submitting, ask yourself:
+
+**Quality:**
+- [ ] Would I trust these results if I saw them?
+- [ ] Are all claims supported by evidence?
+- [ ] Are baselines fair and recent?
+
+**Clarity:**
+- [ ] Can someone reproduce this from the paper?
+- [ ] Is the writing clear to non-experts in this subfield?
+- [ ] Are all terms and notation defined?
+
+**Significance:**
+- [ ] Why should the community care about this?
+- [ ] What can people do with this work?
+- [ ] Is the problem important?
+
+**Originality:**
+- [ ] What specifically is new here?
+- [ ] How does this differ from closest related work?
+- [ ] Is the contribution non-trivial?

EvoScientist/skills/ml-paper-writing/references/sources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+# Source Bibliography
+
+This document lists all authoritative sources used to build this skill, organized by topic.
+
+---
+
+## Writing Philosophy & Guides
+
+### Primary Sources (Must-Read)
+
+| Source | Author | URL | Key Contribution |
+|--------|--------|-----|------------------|
+| **Highly Opinionated Advice on How to Write ML Papers** | Neel Nanda | [Alignment Forum](https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/eJGptPbbFPZGLpjsp/highly-opinionated-advice-on-how-to-write-ml-papers) | Narrative framework, "What/Why/So What", time allocation |
+| **How to Write ML Papers** | Sebastian Farquhar (DeepMind) | [Blog](https://sebastianfarquhar.com/on-research/2024/11/04/how_to_write_ml_papers/) | 5-sentence abstract formula, structure templates |
+| **A Survival Guide to a PhD** | Andrej Karpathy | [Blog](http://karpathy.github.io/2016/09/07/phd/) | Paper structure recipe, contribution framing |
+| **Heuristics for Scientific Writing** | Zachary Lipton (CMU) | [Blog](https://www.approximatelycorrect.com/2018/01/29/heuristics-technical-scientific-writing-machine-learning-perspective/) | Word choice, section balance, intensifier warnings |
+| **Advice for Authors** | Jacob Steinhardt (UC Berkeley) | [Blog](https://jsteinhardt.stat.berkeley.edu/blog/advice-for-authors) | Precision over brevity, consistent terminology |
+| **Easy Paper Writing Tips** | Ethan Perez (Anthropic) | [Blog](https://ethanperez.net/easy-paper-writing-tips/) | Micro-level tips, apostrophe unfolding, clarity tricks |
+
+### Foundational Scientific Writing
+
+| Source | Author | URL | Key Contribution |
+|--------|--------|-----|------------------|
+| **The Science of Scientific Writing** | Gopen & Swan | [PDF](https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~swanson/papers/science-of-writing.pdf) | Topic/stress positions, old-before-new, 7 principles |
+| **Summary of Science of Scientific Writing** | Lawrence Crowl | [Summary](https://www.crowl.org/Lawrence/writing/GopenSwan90.html) | Condensed version of Gopen & Swan |
+
+### Additional Resources
+
+| Source | URL | Key Contribution |
+|--------|-----|------------------|
+| How To Write A Research Paper In ML | [Blog](https://grigorisg9gr.github.io/machine%20learning/research%20paper/how-to-write-a-research-paper-in-machine-learning/) | Practical walkthrough, LaTeX tips |
+| A Recipe for Training Neural Networks | [Karpathy Blog](http://karpathy.github.io/2019/04/25/recipe/) | Debugging methodology that translates to paper structure |
+| ICML Paper Writing Best Practices | [ICML](https://icml.cc/Conferences/2022/BestPractices) | Official venue guidance |
+| Bill Freeman's Writing Slides | [MIT](https://billf.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/cvprPapers.pdf) | Visual guide to paper structure |
+
+---
+
+## Official Conference Guidelines
+
+### NeurIPS
+
+| Document | URL | Purpose |
+|----------|-----|---------|
+| Paper Checklist Guidelines | [NeurIPS](https://neurips.cc/public/guides/PaperChecklist) | 16-item mandatory checklist |
+| Reviewer Guidelines 2025 | [NeurIPS](https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2025/ReviewerGuidelines) | Evaluation criteria, scoring |
+| Style Files | [NeurIPS](https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2025/PaperInformation/StyleFiles) | LaTeX templates |
+
+### ICML
+
+| Document | URL | Purpose |
+|----------|-----|---------|
+| Paper Guidelines | [ICML](https://icml.cc/Conferences/2024/PaperGuidelines) | Submission requirements |
+| Reviewer Instructions 2025 | [ICML](https://icml.cc/Conferences/2025/ReviewerInstructions) | Review form, evaluation |
+| Style & Author Instructions | [ICML](https://icml.cc/Conferences/2022/StyleAuthorInstructions) | Formatting specifications |
+
+### ICLR
+
+| Document | URL | Purpose |
+|----------|-----|---------|
+| Author Guide 2026 | [ICLR](https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2026/AuthorGuide) | Submission requirements, LLM disclosure |
+| Reviewer Guide 2025 | [ICLR](https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/ReviewerGuide) | Review process, evaluation |
+
+### ACL/EMNLP
+
+| Document | URL | Purpose |
+|----------|-----|---------|
+| ACL Style Files | [GitHub](https://github.com/acl-org/acl-style-files) | LaTeX templates |
+| ACL Rolling Review | [ARR](https://aclrollingreview.org/) | Submission process |
+
+### AAAI
+
+| Document | URL | Purpose |
+|----------|-----|---------|
+| Author Kit 2026 | [AAAI](https://aaai.org/authorkit26/) | Templates and guidelines |
+
+### COLM
+
+| Document | URL | Purpose |
+|----------|-----|---------|
+| Template | [GitHub](https://github.com/COLM-org/Template) | LaTeX templates |
+
+---
+
+## Citation APIs & Tools
+
+### APIs
+
+| API | Documentation | Best For |
+|-----|---------------|----------|
+| **Semantic Scholar** | [Docs](https://api.semanticscholar.org/api-docs/) | ML/AI papers, citation graphs |
+| **CrossRef** | [Docs](https://www.crossref.org/documentation/retrieve-metadata/rest-api/) | DOI lookup, BibTeX retrieval |
+| **arXiv** | [Docs](https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/basics.html) | Preprints, PDF access |
+| **OpenAlex** | [Docs](https://docs.openalex.org/) | Open alternative, bulk access |
+
+### Python Libraries
+
+| Library | Install | Purpose |
+|---------|---------|---------|
+| `semanticscholar` | `pip install semanticscholar` | Semantic Scholar wrapper |
+| `arxiv` | `pip install arxiv` | arXiv search and download |
+| `habanero` | `pip install habanero` | CrossRef client |
+
+### Citation Verification
+
+| Tool | URL | Purpose |
+|------|-----|---------|
+| Citely | [citely.ai](https://citely.ai/citation-checker) | Batch verification |
+| ReciteWorks | [reciteworks.com](https://reciteworks.com/) | In-text citation checking |
+
+---
+
+## Visualization & Formatting
+
+### Figure Creation
+
+| Tool | URL | Purpose |
+|------|-----|---------|
+| PlotNeuralNet | [GitHub](https://github.com/HarisIqbal88/PlotNeuralNet) | TikZ neural network diagrams |
+| SciencePlots | [GitHub](https://github.com/garrettj403/SciencePlots) | Publication-ready matplotlib |
+| Okabe-Ito Palette | [Reference](https://jfly.uni-koeln.de/color/) | Colorblind-safe colors |
+
+### LaTeX Resources
+
+| Resource | URL | Purpose |
+|----------|-----|---------|
+| Overleaf Templates | [Overleaf](https://www.overleaf.com/latex/templates) | Online LaTeX editor |
+| BibLaTeX Guide | [CTAN](https://ctan.org/pkg/biblatex) | Modern citation management |
+
+---
+
+## Research on AI Writing & Hallucination
+
+| Source | URL | Key Finding |
+|--------|-----|-------------|
+| AI Hallucinations in Citations | [Enago](https://www.enago.com/academy/ai-hallucinations-research-citations/) | ~40% error rate |
+| Hallucination in AI Writing | [PMC](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10726751/) | Types of citation errors |
+| NeurIPS 2025 AI Report | [ByteIota](https://byteiota.com/neurips-2025-100-ai-hallucinations-slip-through-review/) | 100+ hallucinated citations |
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference by Topic
+
+### For Narrative & Structure
+→ Start with: Neel Nanda, Sebastian Farquhar, Andrej Karpathy
+
+### For Sentence-Level Clarity
+→ Start with: Gopen & Swan, Ethan Perez, Zachary Lipton
+
+### For Word Choice & Style
+→ Start with: Zachary Lipton, Jacob Steinhardt
+
+### For Conference-Specific Requirements
+→ Start with: Official venue guidelines (NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL)
+
+### For Citation Management
+→ Start with: Semantic Scholar API, CrossRef, citation-workflow.md
+
+### For Reviewer Expectations
+→ Start with: Venue reviewer guidelines, reviewer-guidelines.md