Venue Templates

Overview

Access comprehensive LaTeX templates, formatting requirements, and submission guidelines for major scientific publication venues, academic conferences, research posters, and grant proposals. This skill provides ready-to-use templates and detailed specifications for successful academic submissions across disciplines.

Use this skill when preparing manuscripts for journal submission, conference papers, research posters, or grant proposals and need venue-specific formatting requirements and templates.

When to Use This Skill

This skill should be used when:

Preparing a manuscript for submission to a specific journal (Nature, Science, PLOS, IEEE, etc.)
Writing a conference paper with specific formatting requirements (NeurIPS, ICML, CHI, etc.)
Creating an academic research poster for conferences
Drafting grant proposals for federal agencies (NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA) or private foundations
Checking formatting requirements and page limits for target venues
Customizing templates with author information and project details
Verifying document compliance with venue specifications

Visual Enhancement with Scientific Schematics

When creating documents with this skill, always consider adding scientific diagrams and schematics to enhance visual communication.

If your document does not already contain schematics or diagrams:

Use the scientific-schematics skill to generate AI-powered publication-quality diagrams
Simply describe your desired diagram in natural language
Nano Banana Pro will automatically generate, review, and refine the schematic

For new documents: Scientific schematics should be generated by default to visually represent key concepts, workflows, architectures, or relationships described in the text.

How to generate schematics:

python scripts/generate_schematic.py "your diagram description" -o figures/output.png

The AI will automatically:

Create publication-quality images with proper formatting
Review and refine through multiple iterations
Ensure accessibility (colorblind-friendly, high contrast)
Save outputs in the figures/ directory

When to add schematics:

Methodology flowcharts for papers
Conceptual framework diagrams
System architecture illustrations
Data flow diagrams
Experimental design visualizations
Research workflow diagrams
Any complex concept that benefits from visualization

For detailed guidance on creating schematics, refer to the scientific-schematics skill documentation.

Core Capabilities

1. Journal Article Templates

Access LaTeX templates and formatting guidelines for 50+ major scientific journals across disciplines:

Nature Portfolio:

Nature, Nature Methods, Nature Biotechnology, Nature Machine Intelligence
Nature Communications, Nature Protocols
Scientific Reports

Science Family:

Science, Science Advances, Science Translational Medicine
Science Immunology, Science Robotics

PLOS (Public Library of Science):

PLOS ONE, PLOS Biology, PLOS Computational Biology
PLOS Medicine, PLOS Genetics

Cell Press:

Cell, Neuron, Immunity, Cell Reports
Molecular Cell, Developmental Cell

IEEE Publications:

IEEE Transactions (various disciplines)
IEEE Access, IEEE Journal templates

ACM Publications:

ACM Transactions, Communications of the ACM
ACM conference proceedings

Other Major Publishers:

Springer journals (various disciplines)
Elsevier journals (custom templates)
Wiley journals
BMC journals
Frontiers journals

2. Conference Paper Templates

Conference-specific templates with proper formatting for major academic conferences:

Machine Learning & AI:

NeurIPS (Neural Information Processing Systems)
ICML (International Conference on Machine Learning)
ICLR (International Conference on Learning Representations)
CVPR (Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition)
AAAI (Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence)

Computer Science:

ACM CHI (Human-Computer Interaction)
SIGKDD (Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining)
EMNLP (Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing)
SIGIR (Information Retrieval)
USENIX conferences

Biology & Bioinformatics:

ISMB (Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology)
RECOMB (Research in Computational Molecular Biology)
PSB (Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing)

Engineering:

IEEE conference templates (various disciplines)
ASME, AIAA conferences

3. Research Poster Templates

Academic poster templates for conference presentations:

Standard Formats:

A0 (841 × 1189 mm / 33.1 × 46.8 in)
A1 (594 × 841 mm / 23.4 × 33.1 in)
36” × 48” (914 × 1219 mm) - Common US size
42” × 56” (1067 × 1422 mm)
48” × 36” (landscape orientation)

Template Packages:

beamerposter: Classic academic poster template
tikzposter: Modern, colorful poster design
baposter: Structured multi-column layout

Design Features:

Optimal font sizes for readability at distance
Color schemes (colorblind-safe palettes)
Grid layouts and column structures
QR code integration for supplementary materials

4. Grant Proposal Templates

Templates and formatting requirements for major funding agencies:

NSF (National Science Foundation):

Full proposal template (15-page project description)
Project Summary (1 page: Overview, Intellectual Merit, Broader Impacts)
Budget and budget justification
Biographical sketch (3-page limit)
Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources
Data Management Plan

NIH (National Institutes of Health):

R01 Research Grant (multi-year)
R21 Exploratory/Developmental Grant
K Awards (Career Development)
Specific Aims Page (1 page, most critical component)
Research Strategy (Significance, Innovation, Approach)
Biographical sketches (5-page limit)

DOE (Department of Energy):

Office of Science proposals
ARPA-E templates
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) descriptions
Commercialization and impact sections

DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency):

BAA (Broad Agency Announcement) responses
Heilmeier Catechism framework
Technical approach and milestones
Transition planning

Private Foundations:

Gates Foundation
Wellcome Trust
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI)

Workflow: Finding and Using Templates

Step 1: Identify Target Venue

Determine the specific publication venue, conference, or funding agency:

Example queries:
- "I need to submit to Nature"
- "What are the requirements for NeurIPS 2025?"
- "Show me NSF proposal formatting"
- "I'm creating a poster for ISMB"

Step 2: Query Template and Requirements

Access venue-specific templates and formatting guidelines:

For Journals:

# Load journal formatting requirements
Reference: references/journals_formatting.md
Search for: "Nature" or specific journal name

# Retrieve template
Template: assets/journals/nature_article.tex

For Conferences:

# Load conference formatting
Reference: references/conferences_formatting.md
Search for: "NeurIPS" or specific conference

# Retrieve template
Template: assets/journals/neurips_article.tex

For Posters:

# Load poster guidelines
Reference: references/posters_guidelines.md

# Retrieve template
Template: assets/posters/beamerposter_academic.tex

For Grants:

# Load grant requirements
Reference: references/grants_requirements.md
Search for: "NSF" or specific agency

# Retrieve template
Template: assets/grants/nsf_proposal_template.tex

Step 3: Review Formatting Requirements

Check critical specifications before customizing:

Key Requirements to Verify:

Page limits (varies by venue)
Font size and family
Margin specifications
Line spacing
Citation style (APA, Vancouver, Nature, etc.)
Figure/table requirements
File format (PDF, Word, LaTeX source)
Anonymization (for double-blind review)
Supplementary material limits

Step 4: Customize Template

Use helper scripts or manual customization:

Option 1: Helper Script (Recommended):

python scripts/customize_template.py \
  --template assets/journals/nature_article.tex \
  --title "Your Paper Title" \
  --authors "First Author, Second Author" \
  --affiliations "University Name" \
  --output my_nature_paper.tex

Option 2: Manual Editing:

Open template file
Replace placeholder text (marked with comments)
Fill in title, authors, affiliations, abstract
Add your content to each section

Step 5: Validate Format

Check compliance with venue requirements:

python scripts/validate_format.py \
  --file my_paper.pdf \
  --venue "Nature" \
  --check-all

Validation Checks:

Page count within limits
Font sizes correct
Margins meet specifications
References formatted correctly
Figures meet resolution requirements

Step 6: Compile and Review

Compile LaTeX and review output:

# Compile LaTeX
pdflatex my_paper.tex
bibtex my_paper
pdflatex my_paper.tex
pdflatex my_paper.tex

# Or use latexmk for automated compilation
latexmk -pdf my_paper.tex

Review checklist:

All sections present and properly formatted
Citations render correctly
Figures appear with proper captions
Page count within limits
Author guidelines followed
Supplementary materials prepared (if needed)

Integration with Other Skills

This skill works seamlessly with other scientific skills:

Scientific Writing

Use scientific-writing skill for content guidance (IMRaD structure, clarity, precision)
Apply venue-specific templates from this skill for formatting
Combine for complete manuscript preparation

Literature Review

Use literature-review skill for systematic literature search and synthesis
Apply appropriate citation style from venue requirements
Format references according to template specifications

Peer Review

Use peer-review skill to evaluate manuscript quality
Use this skill to verify formatting compliance
Ensure adherence to reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, etc.)

Research Grants

Cross-reference with research-grants skill for content strategy
Use this skill for agency-specific templates and formatting
Combine for comprehensive grant proposal preparation

LaTeX Posters

This skill provides venue-agnostic poster templates
Use for conference-specific poster requirements
Integrate with visualization skills for figure creation

Template Categories

By Document Type

Category	Template Count	Common Venues
Journal Articles	30+	Nature, Science, PLOS, IEEE, ACM, Cell Press
Conference Papers	20+	NeurIPS, ICML, CVPR, CHI, ISMB
Research Posters	10+	A0, A1, 36×48, various packages
Grant Proposals	15+	NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, foundations

By Discipline

Discipline	Supported Venues
Life Sciences	Nature, Cell Press, PLOS, ISMB, RECOMB
Physical Sciences	Science, Physical Review, ACS, APS
Engineering	IEEE, ASME, AIAA, ACM
Computer Science	ACM, IEEE, NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR
Medicine	NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ
Interdisciplinary	PNAS, Nature Communications, Science Advances

Helper Scripts

query_template.py

Search and retrieve templates by venue name, type, or keywords:

# Find templates for a specific journal
python scripts/query_template.py --venue "Nature" --type "article"

# Search by keyword
python scripts/query_template.py --keyword "machine learning"

# List all available templates
python scripts/query_template.py --list-all

# Get requirements for a venue
python scripts/query_template.py --venue "NeurIPS" --requirements

customize_template.py

Customize templates with author and project information:

# Basic customization
python scripts/customize_template.py \
  --template assets/journals/nature_article.tex \
  --output my_paper.tex

# With author information
python scripts/customize_template.py \
  --template assets/journals/nature_article.tex \
  --title "Novel Approach to Protein Folding" \
  --authors "Jane Doe, John Smith, Alice Johnson" \
  --affiliations "MIT, Stanford, Harvard" \
  --email "[email protected]" \
  --output my_paper.tex

# Interactive mode
python scripts/customize_template.py --interactive

validate_format.py

Check document compliance with venue requirements:

# Validate a compiled PDF
python scripts/validate_format.py \
  --file my_paper.pdf \
  --venue "Nature" \
  --check-all

# Check specific aspects
python scripts/validate_format.py \
  --file my_paper.pdf \
  --venue "NeurIPS" \
  --check page-count,margins,fonts

# Generate validation report
python scripts/validate_format.py \
  --file my_paper.pdf \
  --venue "Science" \
  --report validation_report.txt

Best Practices

Template Selection

Verify currency: Check template date and compare with latest author guidelines
Check official sources: Many journals provide official LaTeX classes
Test compilation: Compile template before adding content
Read comments: Templates include helpful inline comments

Customization

Preserve structure: Don’t remove required sections or packages
Follow placeholders: Replace marked placeholder text systematically
Maintain formatting: Don’t override venue-specific formatting
Keep backups: Save original template before customization

Compliance

Check page limits: Verify before final submission
Validate citations: Use correct citation style for venue
Test figures: Ensure figures meet resolution requirements
Review anonymization: Remove identifying information if required

Submission

Follow instructions: Read complete author guidelines
Include all files: LaTeX source, figures, bibliography
Generate properly: Use recommended compilation method
Check output: Verify PDF matches expectations

Common Formatting Requirements

Page Limits (Typical)

Venue Type	Typical Limit	Notes
Nature Article	5 pages	~3000 words excluding refs
Science Report	5 pages	Figures count toward limit
PLOS ONE	No limit	Unlimited length
NeurIPS	8 pages	+ unlimited refs/appendix
ICML	8 pages	+ unlimited refs/appendix
NSF Proposal	15 pages	Project description only
NIH R01	12 pages	Research strategy

Citation Styles by Venue

Venue	Citation Style	Format
Nature	Numbered (superscript)	Nature style
Science	Numbered (superscript)	Science style
PLOS	Numbered (brackets)	Vancouver
Cell Press	Author-year	Cell style
ACM	Numbered	ACM style
IEEE	Numbered (brackets)	IEEE style
APA journals	Author-year	APA 7th

Figure Requirements

Venue	Resolution	Format	Color
Nature	300+ dpi	TIFF, EPS, PDF	RGB or CMYK
Science	300+ dpi	TIFF, PDF	RGB
PLOS	300-600 dpi	TIFF, EPS	RGB
IEEE	300+ dpi	EPS, PDF	RGB or Grayscale

Writing Style Guides

Beyond formatting, this skill provides comprehensive writing style guides that capture how papers should read at different venues—not just how they should look.

Why Style Matters

The same research written for Nature will read very differently than when written for NeurIPS:

Nature/Science: Accessible to non-specialists, story-driven, broad significance
Cell Press: Mechanistic depth, comprehensive data, graphical abstract required
Medical journals: Patient-centered, evidence-graded, structured abstracts
ML conferences: Contribution bullets, ablation studies, reproducibility focus
CS conferences: Field-specific conventions, varying evaluation standards

Available Style Guides

Guide	Covers	Key Topics
`venue_writing_styles.md`	Master overview	Style spectrum, quick reference
`nature_science_style.md`	Nature, Science, PNAS	Accessibility, story-telling, broad impact
`cell_press_style.md`	Cell, Neuron, Immunity	Graphical abstracts, eTOC, Highlights
`medical_journal_styles.md`	NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ	Structured abstracts, evidence language
`ml_conference_style.md`	NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, CVPR	Contribution bullets, ablations
`cs_conference_style.md`	ACL, EMNLP, CHI, SIGKDD	Field-specific conventions
`reviewer_expectations.md`	All venues	What reviewers look for, rebuttal tips

Writing Examples

Concrete examples are available in assets/examples/:

nature_abstract_examples.md: Flowing paragraph abstracts for high-impact journals
neurips_introduction_example.md: ML conference intro with contribution bullets
cell_summary_example.md: Cell Press Summary, Highlights, eTOC format
medical_structured_abstract.md: NEJM, Lancet, JAMA structured format

Workflow: Adapting to a Venue

Identify target venue and load the appropriate style guide
Review writing conventions: Tone, voice, abstract format, structure
Check examples for section-specific guidance
Review expectations: What do reviewers at this venue prioritize?
Apply formatting: Use LaTeX template from assets/

Resources

Bundled Resources

Writing Style Guides (in references/):

venue_writing_styles.md: Master style overview and comparison
nature_science_style.md: Nature/Science writing conventions
cell_press_style.md: Cell Press journal style
medical_journal_styles.md: Medical journal writing guide
ml_conference_style.md: ML conference writing conventions
cs_conference_style.md: CS conference writing guide
reviewer_expectations.md: What reviewers look for by venue

Formatting Requirements (in references/):

journals_formatting.md: Comprehensive journal formatting requirements
conferences_formatting.md: Conference paper specifications
posters_guidelines.md: Research poster design and sizing
grants_requirements.md: Grant proposal requirements by agency

Writing Examples (in assets/examples/):

nature_abstract_examples.md: High-impact journal abstract examples
neurips_introduction_example.md: ML conference introduction format
cell_summary_example.md: Cell Press Summary/Highlights/eTOC
medical_structured_abstract.md: NEJM/Lancet/JAMA abstract format

Templates (in assets/):

journals/: Journal article LaTeX templates
posters/: Research poster templates
grants/: Grant proposal templates

Scripts (in scripts/):

query_template.py: Search and retrieve templates
customize_template.py: Customize with author info
validate_format.py: Check compliance with requirements

External Resources

Journal Author Guidelines:

Nature: https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors
Science: https://www.science.org/content/page/instructions-authors
PLOS: https://plos.org/resources/for-authors/
Cell Press: https://www.cell.com/author-guidelines

Conference Formatting:

Grant Resources:

NSF PAPPG: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg
NIH Forms: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide.html
DOE Funding: https://science.osti.gov/grants

Example Usage

Example 1: Nature Article Submission

User: "I need to prepare a manuscript for Nature"

Response:
1. Load Nature formatting requirements (references/journals_formatting.md)
2. Retrieve Nature template (assets/journals/nature_article.tex)
3. Key requirements:
   - Length: ~3000 words, ~5 pages
   - Format: Single column, 12pt font
   - Citations: Numbered superscript (Nature style)
   - Figures: 300+ dpi, RGB color
4. Customize template with your title, authors, affiliations
5. Compile and validate against requirements

Example 2: NeurIPS Conference Paper

User: "What are the formatting requirements for NeurIPS?"

Response:
From references/conferences_formatting.md:
- Page limit: 8 pages main text + unlimited references/appendix
- Format: Two-column, 10pt font
- Template: neurips_2024.sty (official style file)
- Anonymization: Required for initial submission
- Citations: Numbered (brackets)
- Figures: High resolution, colorblind-safe recommended

Example 3: NSF Proposal

User: "Help me format an NSF proposal"

Response:
NSF requirements (from references/grants_requirements.md):
- Project Description: 15 pages maximum
- Project Summary: 1 page (Overview, Intellectual Merit, Broader Impacts)
- Budget Justification: 3-5 pages
- Biographical Sketch: 3 pages per senior personnel
- Font: Minimum 10pt, Times Roman or similar
- Margins: 1 inch all sides
Template: assets/grants/nsf_proposal_template.tex

Example 4: Conference Poster

User: "I need to create a poster for ISMB"

Response:
ISMB poster specifications:
- Size: Typically A0 portrait (33.1 × 46.8 inches)
- Recommended template: beamerposter or tikzposter
- Font sizes: Title 60-85pt, Headers 36-48pt, Body 24-32pt
- Include: QR code for paper/supplementary materials
Available templates:
- assets/posters/beamerposter_academic.tex
- assets/posters/tikzposter_research.tex

Updates and Maintenance

Template Currency:

Templates updated annually or when venues release new guidelines
Last updated: 2024
Check official venue sites for most current requirements

Reporting Issues:

Template compilation errors
Outdated formatting requirements
Missing venue templates
Incorrect specifications

Summary

The venue-templates skill provides comprehensive access to:

50+ publication venue templates across disciplines
Detailed formatting requirements for journals, conferences, posters, grants
Helper scripts for template discovery, customization, and validation
Integration with other scientific writing skills
Best practices for successful academic submissions

Use this skill whenever you need venue-specific formatting guidance or templates for academic publishing.

Reference: Cell_Press_Style

Cell Press Writing Style Guide

Comprehensive writing guide for Cell, Neuron, Immunity, Molecular Cell, Developmental Cell, Cell Reports, and other Cell Press journals.

Last Updated: 2024

Overview

Cell Press journals emphasize mechanistic depth, rigorous experimentation, and biological insight. Unlike Nature/Science, which prioritize broad accessibility, Cell papers are written for biologists who appreciate technical detail and comprehensive data.

Key Philosophy

“Cell papers tell a complete mechanistic story with exhaustive experimental support.”

Primary Goal: Provide deep biological insight with extensive experimental validation that advances understanding of fundamental mechanisms.

Unique Cell Press Features

Cell Press has several distinctive elements not found in other journals:

1. Summary (Not Abstract)

Cell uses “Summary” instead of “Abstract” - functionally similar but emphasizes synthesis.

2. Graphical Abstract (REQUIRED)

A visual summary appearing on the table of contents. This is mandatory for all Cell Press journals.

3. eTOC Blurb

A 30-50 word “elevator pitch” for the electronic table of contents.

4. Highlights

3-4 bullet points (≤85 characters each) capturing key findings.

5. In Brief

A one-sentence summary of the paper.

Audience and Tone

Target Reader

Expert biologist in the relevant field
Familiar with techniques and terminology
Expects comprehensive data and mechanistic depth
Values rigor and reproducibility

Tone Characteristics

Characteristic	Description
Technical	Appropriate jargon for the field
Mechanistic	Focus on how and why, not just what
Comprehensive	Thorough exploration of the question
Data-rich	Extensive experimental support
Precise	Exact terminology and quantification

Voice

First person (“we”) acceptable: “We demonstrate that…”
Active voice encouraged: “We identified…”
Confident but measured: Strong claims require strong evidence

Summary (Abstract)

Style Requirements

150 words maximum for Cell; varies for other Cell Press journals
Flowing paragraph (not structured sections)
Dense with information: Every sentence should convey key points
Mechanistic focus: What was discovered and how it works

Summary Structure

Context (1 sentence): The biological question/problem
Approach (1 sentence): What you did
Key findings (2-4 sentences): Main results with mechanism
Significance (1 sentence): What this reveals about biology

Example Summary (Cell Style)

Cellular senescence is a stress response that arrests proliferation and 
promotes tissue remodeling, but the mechanisms controlling senescent cell 
fate remain unclear. Here, we identify the transcription factor FOXO4 as a 
critical regulator of senescent cell viability. FOXO4 is highly expressed 
in senescent cells and sequesters p53 away from mitochondria, preventing 
apoptosis. Using a cell-penetrating peptide that disrupts FOXO4-p53 
interaction, we selectively induce senescent cell apoptosis in vitro and 
in vivo. Administration of this peptide to aged mice restores fitness, fur 
density, and renal function. These findings reveal FOXO4-p53 as a senescence 
vulnerability and establish proof-of-concept for targeted senolytic 
interventions in aging.

Graphical Abstract

Purpose

A single-panel visual summary for the table of contents that captures the entire paper’s message.

Requirements

Size: Square format, typically 1200 × 1200 pixels
Layout: Clean, uncluttered
Content: Show workflow, key finding, and mechanism
Text: Minimal labels, large readable fonts
Color: Vibrant but professional

Design Elements

Typical Graphical Abstract Components:
1. Starting point (cell, organism, condition)
2. Intervention/treatment (arrows, symbols)
3. Key measurement or observation
4. Outcome/conclusion (visual representation)
5. Minimal text labels connecting elements

Example Description (for schematic generation)

"Graphical abstract showing: Left panel - normal cells with FOXO4 (blue) 
and p53 (green) separate. Center panel - senescent cells with FOXO4 
binding p53, preventing apoptosis. Right panel - FOXO4 peptide disrupts 
interaction, allowing p53 to reach mitochondria, triggering apoptosis. 
Arrow at bottom showing aged mouse → treatment → rejuvenated mouse."

Highlights

Format

3-4 bullet points, each ≤85 characters (including spaces)

Content Guidelines

Start with an action verb or key noun
Include specific findings
Make each highlight standalone
Cover different aspects of the paper

Example Highlights

• FOXO4 is selectively expressed in senescent cells

• FOXO4 sequesters p53, preventing senescent cell apoptosis

• A FOXO4-targeting peptide induces selective senescent cell death

• Senolytic peptide treatment restores function in aged mice

eTOC Blurb

Format

30-50 words for the electronic table of contents

Writing Guidelines

Written by authors (editors may modify)
Start with author names or key finding
Make it a complete, engaging sentence
Highlight the most exciting aspect

Example eTOC Blurb

Baar et al. identify FOXO4 as a vulnerability of senescent cells and 
develop a peptide that induces targeted apoptosis of senescent cells. 
Treatment of aged mice with this senolytic peptide restores fitness 
and organ function.

Introduction

Length and Structure

4-6 paragraphs (800-1200 words)
More comprehensive than Nature/Science
Can include more technical detail and literature

Paragraph-by-Paragraph Guide

Paragraph 1: Biological Context

Establish the biological process or system
Why is this important to understand?
Set up the key players and mechanisms

Paragraphs 2-3: State of the Field

Detailed review of relevant prior work
Establish what is known mechanistically
More comprehensive than Nature/Science

Paragraph 4: The Gap

What remains unknown or controversial?
Why is this a critical question?
What has prevented progress?

Paragraph 5: Your Approach

How did you tackle this question?
What techniques/systems did you use?
Why was your approach appropriate?

Final Paragraph: Key Findings Preview

Brief statement of what you discovered
How does this advance the field?
Set up the structure of results

Example Introduction Paragraph

Cellular senescence is characterized by stable cell-cycle arrest, profound 
chromatin alterations, and a complex secretory phenotype known as the 
senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) (Coppé et al., 2008; 
Rodier and Campisi, 2011). Senescent cells accumulate with age and at 
sites of pathology, where they can drive tissue dysfunction through 
SASP-mediated inflammation and disruption of tissue architecture (van 
Deursen, 2014). The targeted elimination of senescent cells—senolysis—has 
emerged as a promising therapeutic strategy, with genetic and pharmacological 
approaches demonstrating benefits in mouse models of aging and age-related 
disease (Baker et al., 2011, 2016; Chang et al., 2016).

Results

Organization

Cell papers typically have 5-8 results sections, each with a descriptive subheading:

Results
├── Section 1: Discovery of the phenomenon
├── Section 2: Characterization of the mechanism  
├── Section 3: Identification of molecular players
├── Section 4: Functional validation
├── Section 5: In vivo confirmation
├── Section 6: Therapeutic proof-of-concept
└── Section 7: Broader implications

Subheading Style

Cell uses declarative subheadings stating the finding:

❌ “Analysis of FOXO4 expression” (descriptive - avoid) ✅ “FOXO4 Is Selectively Upregulated in Senescent Cells” (declarative)

Results Writing Style

Comprehensive detail: Cell expects more methodological context in Results than Nature
Figure-by-figure narrative: Each major figure often corresponds to a results section
Statistical rigor: All quantifications with statistics
Biological interpretation: More interpretation woven in than pure Results sections

Example Results Paragraph

To identify transcription factors regulating senescent cell viability, we 
performed RNA sequencing on proliferating and senescent human fibroblasts 
(IMR90 cells induced to senesce by replicative exhaustion, ionizing 
radiation, or oncogene-induced senescence). Differential expression 
analysis revealed 47 transcription factors significantly upregulated 
across all senescence modalities (FDR < 0.05, fold change > 2; Figure 1A 
and Table S1). Among these, FOXO4 showed the highest and most consistent 
upregulation (12.3 ± 2.1-fold; Figure 1B), a finding we confirmed by 
quantitative RT-PCR (Figure 1C) and immunoblot analysis (Figure 1D). 
Immunofluorescence microscopy revealed nuclear FOXO4 accumulation in 
senescent but not proliferating cells (Figure 1E,F).

Discussion

Structure

Cell discussions are thorough and mechanistic:

Paragraph 1: Summary

Restate key findings
Synthesize the main message

Paragraphs 2-4: Mechanistic Interpretation

Deep dive into how your findings fit with known biology
Propose models
Discuss molecular mechanisms in detail

Paragraph 5: Comparison with Literature

How do your findings relate to prior work?
Resolve apparent contradictions

Paragraph 6: Implications and Applications

Therapeutic implications
Broader significance

Paragraph 7: Limitations

Honest assessment
Open questions remaining

Final Paragraph: Conclusions

Big-picture take-home message
Future directions

Experimental Procedures / STAR Methods

STAR Methods Format

Cell uses a structured STAR Methods section:

RESOURCE AVAILABILITY
  Lead Contact
  Materials Availability
  Data and Code Availability

EXPERIMENTAL MODEL AND SUBJECT DETAILS
  Cell Lines
  Animals
  Human Subjects

METHOD DETAILS
  [Detailed protocols for each technique]

QUANTIFICATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Key Reagent Table (KEY RESOURCES TABLE)

Cell requires a comprehensive table of all key resources:

REAGENT or RESOURCE	SOURCE	IDENTIFIER
Antibodies
Rabbit anti-FOXO4	Abcam	Cat#ab12345
Chemicals
Doxorubicin	Sigma-Aldrich	Cat#D1515
Cell Lines
IMR90	ATCC	CCL-186

Figures

Figure Philosophy

Cell papers are figure-heavy with extensive multi-panel figures:

6-8 main figures typical
Multi-panel format: 6-12 panels per figure common
Data-dense: Comprehensive experimental support
Extended Data: Supplementary figures for additional validation

Panel Labeling

Panels labeled with lowercase letters: (A), (B), (C)

Figure Legend Format

Figure 3. FOXO4 Sequesters p53 in the Nucleus of Senescent Cells

(A) Immunofluorescence microscopy of p53 (green) and FOXO4 (red) in 
proliferating (left) and senescent (right) IMR90 cells. DAPI (blue) 
marks nuclei. Scale bar, 10 μm.

(B) Quantification of nuclear p53 intensity in proliferating versus 
senescent cells. Data represent mean ± SEM; n = 3 biological replicates, 
>100 cells per condition. ***p < 0.001, two-tailed Student's t test.

(C and D) Co-immunoprecipitation of FOXO4 and p53 in proliferating (C) 
and senescent (D) cell lysates. IgG, immunoglobulin G control.

(E) Proximity ligation assay for FOXO4-p53 interaction. Red dots indicate 
interaction events. Scale bar, 10 μm.

(F) Model of FOXO4-mediated p53 sequestration in senescent cells.

See also Figure S3 and Table S2.

References

Citation Style

Author-year format: (Smith et al., 2023) or Smith et al. (2023)
Multiple citations: (Smith et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2021)
Two authors: (Smith and Jones, 2023)
Three or more: (Smith et al., 2023)

Reference Format

Baker, D.J., Wijshake, T., Tchkonia, T., LeBrasseur, N.K., Childs, B.G., 
van de Sluis, B., Kirkland, J.L., and van Deursen, J.M. (2011). Clearance 
of p16Ink4a-positive senescent cells delays ageing-associated disorders. 
Nature 479, 232–236.

Cell Press Journal Comparison

Journal	Focus	Article Length	Figures
Cell	Breakthrough biology	Long	7-8 main + ED
Neuron	Neuroscience	Long	6-8 main
Immunity	Immunology	Medium-Long	6-7 main
Molecular Cell	Molecular mechanisms	Medium	5-7 main
Developmental Cell	Development	Medium	5-7 main
Cell Reports	Solid science	Medium	4-6 main

Common Mistakes

Insufficient mechanism: Describing what happens without how
Under-controlled experiments: Missing key controls
Weak phenotype validation: Single approach instead of multiple
Missing in vivo work: Cell papers often expect animal studies
Incomplete figure panels: Not showing all relevant conditions
Forgetting graphical abstract: Required element
Exceeding highlight character limits: ≤85 characters per bullet

Pre-Submission Checklist

Required Elements

Graphical abstract (square format)
Highlights (3-4 bullets, ≤85 characters each)
eTOC blurb (30-50 words)
Summary (≤150 words)
Key Resources Table

Content

Mechanistic depth throughout
Multiple complementary approaches
In vivo validation (if applicable)
Declarative subheadings
Comprehensive figure panels

Style

Technical precision in terminology
Author-year citations
Figure legends complete and standalone
STAR Methods properly formatted

Reference: Conferences_Formatting

Conference Formatting Requirements

Comprehensive formatting requirements and submission guidelines for major academic conferences across disciplines.

Last Updated: 2024

Machine Learning & Artificial Intelligence

NeurIPS (Neural Information Processing Systems)

Conference Type: Top-tier machine learning conference
Frequency: Annual (December)

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit:
- Main paper: 8 pages (excluding references)
- References: Unlimited
- Appendix/Supplementary: Unlimited (optional, reviewed at discretion)
Format: Two-column
Font: Times or Times New Roman, 10pt for body text
Line spacing: Single-spaced
Margins: 1 inch (2.54 cm) all sides
Column separation: 0.25 inch (0.635 cm)
Paper size: US Letter (8.5 × 11 inches)
Anonymization: Required for initial submission (double-blind review)
- Remove author names, affiliations
- Anonymize self-citations (“Author et al.” → “Anonymous et al.”)
- Remove acknowledgments revealing identity
Citations: Numbered in square brackets [1], [2-4]
References: Any consistent style (commonly uses numbered references)
Figures:
- High resolution (300+ dpi)
- Colorblind-friendly palettes recommended
- Can span both columns if needed
Tables: Clear, readable at publication size
Equations: Numbered if referenced
LaTeX Class: neurips_2024.sty (updated annually)
Supplementary Materials:
- Code strongly encouraged (GitHub, anonymous repo for review)
- Additional experiments, proofs
- Not counted toward page limit

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/neurips_article.tex

Submission Notes:

Use official style file (changes yearly)
Paper ID on first page (auto-generated during submission)
Include “broader impact” statement (varies by year)
Reproducibility checklist required

Website: https://neurips.cc/

ICML (International Conference on Machine Learning)

Conference Type: Top-tier machine learning conference
Frequency: Annual (July)

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit:
- Main paper: 8 pages (excluding references and appendix)
- References: Unlimited
- Appendix: Unlimited (optional)
Format: Two-column
Font: Times, 10pt
Line spacing: Single-spaced
Margins: 1 inch all sides
Paper size: US Letter
Anonymization: Required (double-blind)
Citations: Numbered or author-year (consistent style)
Figures: High resolution, colorblind-safe recommended
LaTeX Class: icml2024.sty (updated yearly)
Supplementary: Strongly encouraged (code, data, appendix)

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/icml_article.tex

Submission Notes:

Must use official ICML style file
Checklist for reproducibility
Ethics statement if applicable

Website: https://icml.cc/

ICLR (International Conference on Learning Representations)

Conference Type: Top-tier deep learning conference
Frequency: Annual (April/May)

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit:
- Main paper: 8 pages (excluding references, appendix, ethics statement)
- References: Unlimited
- Appendix: Unlimited
Format: Two-column
Font: Times, 10pt
Anonymization: Required (double-blind)
Citations: Numbered [1] or author-year
LaTeX Class: iclr2024_conference.sty
Supplementary: Code and data encouraged (anonymous GitHub)
Open Review: Reviews and responses are public post-decision

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/iclr_article.tex

Unique Features:

OpenReview platform (transparent review process)
Author-reviewer discussion during review
Camera-ready can exceed 8 pages

Website: https://iclr.cc/

CVPR (Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition)

Conference Type: Top-tier computer vision conference
Frequency: Annual (June)

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit:
- Main paper: 8 pages (including figures and tables, excluding references)
- References: Unlimited (separate section)
Format: Two-column
Font: Times Roman, 10pt
Anonymization: Required (double-blind)
- Blur faces in images if needed
- Anonymize datasets if they reveal identity
Paper size: US Letter
Citations: Numbered [1]
Figures: High resolution, can be color
LaTeX Template: CVPR official template (changes yearly)
Supplementary Material:
- Video demonstrations encouraged
- Additional results, code
- 100 MB limit for all supplementary files

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/cvpr_article.tex

Website: https://cvpr.thecvf.com/

AAAI (Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence)

Conference Type: Major AI conference
Frequency: Annual (February)

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit:
- Technical papers: 7 pages (excluding references)
- References: Unlimited
Format: Two-column
Font: Times Roman, 10pt
Anonymization: Required (double-blind)
Paper size: US Letter
Citations: Various styles accepted (be consistent)
LaTeX Template: AAAI official style
Supplementary: Optional appendix

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/aaai_article.tex

Website: https://aaai.org/conference/aaai/

IJCAI (International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence)

Conference Type: Major AI conference
Frequency: Annual

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit: 7 pages (excluding references)
Format: Two-column
Font: Times, 10pt
Anonymization: Required
LaTeX Template: IJCAI official style

Computer Science

ACM CHI (Human-Computer Interaction)

Conference Type: Premier HCI conference
Frequency: Annual (April/May)

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit:
- Papers: 10 pages (excluding references)
- Late-Breaking Work: 4 pages
Format: Single-column ACM format
Font: Depends on ACM template
Anonymization: Required for Papers track
LaTeX Class: acmart with CHI proceedings format
Citations: ACM style (numbered or author-year)
Figures: High quality, accessibility considered
Accessibility: Alt text for figures encouraged

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/chi_article.tex

Website: https://chi.acm.org/

SIGKDD (Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining)

Conference Type: Top data mining conference
Frequency: Annual (August)

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit:
- Research Track: 9 pages (excluding references)
- Applied Data Science: 9 pages
Format: Two-column
LaTeX Class: acmart (sigconf format)
Font: ACM template default
Anonymization: Required (double-blind)
Citations: ACM numbered style
Supplementary: Code and data encouraged

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/kdd_article.tex

Website: https://kdd.org/

EMNLP (Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing)

Conference Type: Top NLP conference
Frequency: Annual (November/December)

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit:
- Long papers: 8 pages (+ unlimited references and appendix)
- Short papers: 4 pages (+ unlimited references)
Format: Two-column
Font: Times New Roman, 11pt
Anonymization: Required (double-blind)
- Do not include author names or affiliations
- Self-citations should be anonymized
Paper size: US Letter or A4
Citations: Named style similar to ACL
LaTeX Template: ACL/EMNLP official style
Supplementary: Appendix unlimited, code encouraged

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/emnlp_article.tex

Website: https://www.emnlp.org/

ACL (Association for Computational Linguistics)

Conference Type: Premier NLP conference
Frequency: Annual (July)

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit: 8 pages (long), 4 pages (short), excluding references
Format: Two-column
Font: Times, 11pt
Anonymization: Required
LaTeX Template: ACL official style (acl.sty)

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/acl_article.tex

USENIX Security Symposium

Conference Type: Top security conference
Frequency: Annual (August)

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit:
- Papers: No strict limit (typically 15-20 pages including everything)
- Well-written, concise papers preferred
Format: Two-column
Font: Times, 10pt
Anonymization: Required (double-blind)
LaTeX Template: USENIX official template
Citations: Numbered
Paper size: US Letter

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/usenix_article.tex

Website: https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity

SIGIR (Information Retrieval)

Conference Type: Top information retrieval conference
Frequency: Annual (July)

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit:
- Full papers: 10 pages (excluding references)
- Short papers: 4 pages (excluding references)
Format: Single-column ACM format
LaTeX Class: acmart (sigconf)
Anonymization: Required
Citations: ACM style

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/sigir_article.tex

Biology & Bioinformatics

ISMB (Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology)

Conference Type: Premier computational biology conference
Frequency: Annual (July)

Formatting Requirements:

Publication: Proceedings published in Bioinformatics journal
Page Limit:
- Typically 7-8 pages including figures and references
Format: Two-column
Font: Times, 10pt
Citations: Numbered (Oxford style similar to Bioinformatics journal)
LaTeX Template: Oxford Bioinformatics template
Anonymization: Not required (single-blind)
Figures: High resolution, color acceptable
Supplementary: Encouraged for additional data/methods

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/ismb_article.tex

Website: https://www.iscb.org/ismb

RECOMB (Research in Computational Molecular Biology)

Conference Type: Top computational biology conference
Frequency: Annual (April/May)

Formatting Requirements:

Publication: Proceedings published as Springer LNCS (Lecture Notes in Computer Science)
Page Limit:
- Extended abstracts: 12-15 pages (including references)
Format: Single-column
Font: Based on Springer LNCS template
LaTeX Class: llncs (Springer)
Citations: Numbered or author-year
Anonymization: Required (double-blind)
Supplementary: Appendix can be submitted

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/recomb_article.tex

Website: https://www.recomb.org/

PSB (Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing)

Conference Type: Biomedical informatics conference
Frequency: Annual (January)

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit: 12 pages including figures and references
Format: Single-column
Font: Times, 11pt
Margins: 1 inch all sides
Citations: Numbered
Anonymization: Not required
Figures: Embedded in text
LaTeX Template: PSB official template

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/psb_article.tex

Website: https://psb.stanford.edu/

Engineering

IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit: 8 pages (including figures and references)
Format: Two-column
Font: Times, 10pt
LaTeX Class: IEEEtran
Citations: IEEE style [1]
Anonymization: Required for initial submission
Video: Optional video submissions encouraged

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/icra_article.tex

IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

Formatting: Same as ICRA (IEEE robotics template)

International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD)

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit: 8 pages
Format: Two-column
LaTeX Class: IEEE template
Citations: IEEE style

Design Automation Conference (DAC)

Formatting Requirements:

Page Limit: 6 pages
Format: Two-column
Font: Times, 10pt
LaTeX Class: ACM or IEEE template (check yearly guidelines)

Multidisciplinary

AAAS Annual Meeting

Conference Type: Broad scientific conference
Formatting: Varies by symposium (typically extended abstracts)

Quick Reference Table

Conference	Pages	Format	Blind	Citations	Template
NeurIPS	8 + refs	Two-col	Double	[1]	`neurips_article.tex`
ICML	8 + refs	Two-col	Double	[1]	`icml_article.tex`
ICLR	8 + refs	Two-col	Double	[1]	`iclr_article.tex`
CVPR	8 + refs	Two-col	Double	[1]	`cvpr_article.tex`
AAAI	7 + refs	Two-col	Double	Various	`aaai_article.tex`
CHI	10 + refs	Single-col	Double	ACM	`chi_article.tex`
SIGKDD	9 + refs	Two-col	Double	ACM [1]	`kdd_article.tex`
EMNLP	8 + refs	Two-col	Double	Named	`emnlp_article.tex`
ISMB	7-8 pages	Two-col	Single	[1]	`ismb_article.tex`
RECOMB	12-15 pages	Single-col	Double	Springer	`recomb_article.tex`

General Conference Submission Guidelines

Remove:

Author names, affiliations, emails from title page
Acknowledgments section
Funding information that reveals identity
Any “our previous work” citations that make identity obvious

Anonymize:

Self-citations: “Smith et al. [5]” → “Anonymous et al. [5]” or “Prior work [5]”
Institution-specific details: “our university” → “a large research university”
Dataset names if they reveal identity

Keep Anonymous:

Code repositories (use anonymous GitHub for review)
Supplementary materials
Any URLs or links

Supplementary Materials

Common Inclusions:

Source code (GitHub repository, zip file)
Additional experimental results
Proofs and derivations
Extended related work
Dataset descriptions
Video demonstrations
Interactive demos

Best Practices:

Keep supplementary well-organized
Reference supplementary clearly from main paper
Ensure supplementary is anonymized for blind review
Check file size limits (typically 50-100 MB)

Camera-Ready Preparation

After acceptance:

De-anonymize: Add author names, affiliations
Add acknowledgments: Funding, contributions
Copyright: Add conference copyright notice
Formatting: Follow camera-ready specific guidelines
Page limit: May allow 1-2 extra pages (check guidelines)
PDF/A compliance: Some conferences require PDF/A format

Accessibility Considerations

For All Conferences:

Use colorblind-safe color palettes
Ensure sufficient contrast
Provide alt text for figures (where supported)
Use clear, readable fonts
Avoid solely color-based distinctions

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Wrong style file: Using outdated conference style file
Page limit violation: Figures/tables pushing over limit
Font size manipulation: Changing fonts to fit more content
Margin adjustments: Modifying margins to gain space
De-anonymization: Accidentally revealing identity in blind review
Missing references: Not citing relevant prior work
Low-quality figures: Pixelated or illegible figures
Inconsistent formatting: Different sections using different styles

Getting Official Templates

Where to Find Official Templates:

Conference website: “Call for Papers” or “Author Instructions”
GitHub: Many conferences host templates on GitHub
Overleaf: Many official templates available on Overleaf
CTAN: LaTeX class files often on CTAN repository

Template Naming:

Conferences often update templates yearly
Use the correct year’s template (e.g., neurips_2024.sty)
Check for “camera-ready” vs. “submission” versions

Notes

Annual updates: Conference requirements change; always check current year’s CFP
Deadline types:
- Abstract deadline (often 1 week before paper deadline)
- Paper deadline (firm, no extensions typically)
- Supplementary deadline (may be a few days after paper)
Timezone: Pay attention to deadline timezone (often AOE - Anywhere on Earth)
Rebuttal: Many conferences have author response/rebuttal periods
Dual submission: Check conference policy on concurrent submissions
Poster/Oral: Acceptance often comes with presentation format

Conference Tiers (Informal)

Machine Learning:

Tier 1: NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR
Tier 2: AAAI, IJCAI, UAI

Computer Vision:

Tier 1: CVPR, ICCV, ECCV

Natural Language Processing:

Tier 1: ACL, EMNLP, NAACL

Bioinformatics:

Tier 1: RECOMB, ISMB
Tier 2: PSB, WABI

(Tiers are informal and field-dependent; not official rankings)

Reference: Cs_Conference_Style

CS Conference Writing Style Guide

Comprehensive writing guide for ACL, EMNLP, NAACL (NLP), CHI, CSCW (HCI), SIGKDD, WWW, SIGIR (data mining/IR), and other major CS conferences.

Last Updated: 2024

Overview

CS conferences span diverse subfields with distinct writing cultures. This guide covers NLP, HCI, and data mining/IR venues, each with unique expectations and evaluation criteria.

Part 1: NLP Conferences (ACL, EMNLP, NAACL)

NLP Writing Philosophy

“Strong empirical results on standard benchmarks with insightful analysis.”

NLP papers balance empirical rigor with linguistic insight. Human evaluation is increasingly important alongside automatic metrics.

Audience and Tone

Target Reader

NLP researchers and computational linguists
Familiar with transformer architectures, standard benchmarks
Expect reproducible results and error analysis

Tone Characteristics

Characteristic	Description
Task-focused	Clear problem definition
Benchmark-oriented	Standard datasets emphasized
Analysis-rich	Error analysis, qualitative examples
Reproducible	Full implementation details

Abstract (NLP Style)

Structure

Task/problem (1 sentence)
Limitation of prior work (1 sentence)
Your approach (1-2 sentences)
Results on benchmarks (2 sentences)
Analysis finding (optional, 1 sentence)

Example Abstract

Coreference resolution remains challenging for pronouns with distant or 
ambiguous antecedents. Prior neural approaches struggle with these 
difficult cases due to limited context modeling. We introduce 
LongContext-Coref, a retrieval-augmented coreference model that 
dynamically retrieves relevant context from document history. On the 
OntoNotes 5.0 benchmark, LongContext-Coref achieves 83.4 F1, improving 
over the previous state-of-the-art by 1.2 points. On the challenging 
WinoBias dataset, we reduce gender bias by 34% while maintaining 
accuracy. Qualitative analysis reveals that our model successfully 
resolves pronouns requiring world knowledge, a known weakness of 
prior approaches.

NLP Paper Structure

├── Introduction
│   ├── Task motivation
│   ├── Prior work limitations
│   ├── Your contribution
│   └── Contribution bullets
├── Related Work
├── Method
│   ├── Problem formulation
│   ├── Model architecture
│   └── Training procedure
├── Experiments
│   ├── Datasets (with statistics)
│   ├── Baselines
│   ├── Main results
│   ├── Analysis
│   │   ├── Error analysis
│   │   ├── Ablation study
│   │   └── Qualitative examples
│   └── Human evaluation (if applicable)
├── Discussion / Limitations
└── Conclusion

NLP-Specific Requirements

Datasets

Use standard benchmarks: GLUE, SQuAD, CoNLL, OntoNotes
Report dataset statistics: train/dev/test sizes
Data preprocessing: Document all steps

Evaluation Metrics

Task-appropriate metrics: F1, BLEU, ROUGE, accuracy
Statistical significance: Paired bootstrap, p-values
Multiple runs: Report mean ± std across seeds

Human Evaluation

Increasingly expected for generation tasks:

Annotator details: Number, qualifications, agreement
Evaluation protocol: Guidelines, interface, payment
Inter-annotator agreement: Cohen’s κ or Krippendorff’s α

Example Human Evaluation Table

Table 3: Human Evaluation Results (100 samples, 3 annotators)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Method        | Fluency | Coherence | Factuality | Overall
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Baseline      |   3.8   |    3.2    |    3.5     |   3.5
GPT-3.5       |   4.2   |    4.0    |    3.7     |   4.0
Our Method    |   4.4   |    4.3    |    4.1     |   4.3
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Inter-annotator κ = 0.72. Scale: 1-5 (higher is better).

ACL-Specific Notes

ARR (ACL Rolling Review): Shared review system across ACL venues
Responsible NLP checklist: Ethics, limitations, risks
Long (8 pages) vs. Short (4 pages): Different expectations
Findings papers: Lower-tier acceptance track

Part 2: HCI Conferences (CHI, CSCW, UIST)

HCI Writing Philosophy

“Technology in service of humans—understand users first, then design and evaluate.”

HCI papers are fundamentally user-centered. Technology novelty alone is insufficient; understanding human needs and demonstrating user benefit is essential.

Audience and Tone

Target Reader

HCI researchers and practitioners
UX designers and product developers
Interdisciplinary (CS, psychology, design, social science)

Tone Characteristics

Characteristic	Description
User-centered	Focus on people, not technology
Design-informed	Grounded in design thinking
Empirical	User studies provide evidence
Reflective	Consider broader implications

HCI Abstract

Focus on Users and Impact

Video calling has become essential for remote collaboration, yet 
current interfaces poorly support the peripheral awareness that makes 
in-person work effective. Through formative interviews with 24 remote 
workers, we identified three key challenges: difficulty gauging 
colleague availability, lack of ambient presence cues, and interruption 
anxiety. We designed AmbientOffice, a peripheral display system that 
conveys teammate presence through subtle ambient visualizations. In a 
two-week deployment study with 18 participants across three distributed 
teams, AmbientOffice increased spontaneous collaboration by 40% and 
reduced perceived isolation (p<0.01). Participants valued the system's 
non-intrusive nature and reported feeling more connected to remote 
colleagues. We discuss implications for designing ambient awareness 
systems and the tension between visibility and privacy in remote work.

HCI Paper Structure

Research Through Design / Systems Papers

├── Introduction
│   ├── Problem in human terms
│   ├── Why technology can help
│   └── Contribution summary
├── Related Work
│   ├── Domain background
│   ├── Prior systems
│   └── Theoretical frameworks
├── Formative Work (often)
│   ├── Interviews / observations
│   └── Design requirements
├── System Design
│   ├── Design rationale
│   ├── Implementation
│   └── Interface walkthrough
├── Evaluation
│   ├── Study design
│   ├── Participants
│   ├── Procedure
│   ├── Findings (quant + qual)
│   └── Limitations
├── Discussion
│   ├── Design implications
│   ├── Generalizability
│   └── Future work
└── Conclusion

Qualitative / Interview Studies

├── Introduction
├── Related Work
├── Methods
│   ├── Participants
│   ├── Procedure
│   ├── Data collection
│   └── Analysis method (thematic, grounded theory, etc.)
├── Findings
│   ├── Theme 1 (with quotes)
│   ├── Theme 2 (with quotes)
│   └── Theme 3 (with quotes)
├── Discussion
│   ├── Implications for design
│   ├── Implications for research
│   └── Limitations
└── Conclusion

HCI-Specific Requirements

Participant Reporting

Demographics: Age, gender, relevant experience
Recruitment: How and where recruited
Compensation: Payment amount and type
IRB approval: Ethics board statement

Quotes in Findings

Use direct quotes to ground findings:

Participants valued the ambient nature of the display. As P7 described: 
"It's like having a window to my teammate's office. I don't need to 
actively check it, but I know they're there." This passive awareness 
reduced the barrier to initiating contact.

Design Implications Section

Translate findings into actionable guidance:

**Implication 1: Support peripheral awareness without demanding attention.**
Ambient displays should be visible in peripheral vision but not require 
active monitoring. Designers should consider calm technology principles.

**Implication 2: Balance visibility with privacy.**
Users want to share presence but fear surveillance. Systems should 
provide granular controls and make visibility mutual.

CHI-Specific Notes

Contribution types: Empirical, artifact, methodological, theoretical
ACM format: acmart document class with sigchi option
Accessibility: Alt text, inclusive language expected
Contribution statement: Required per-author contributions

Part 3: Data Mining & IR (SIGKDD, WWW, SIGIR)

Data Mining Writing Philosophy

“Scalable methods for real-world data with demonstrated practical impact.”

Data mining papers emphasize scalability, real-world applicability, and solid experimental methodology.

Audience and Tone

Target Reader

Data scientists and ML engineers
Industry researchers
Applied ML practitioners

Tone Characteristics

Characteristic	Description
Scalable	Handle large datasets
Practical	Real-world applications
Reproducible	Datasets and code shared
Industrial	Industry datasets valued

KDD Abstract

Emphasize Scale and Application

Fraud detection in e-commerce requires processing millions of 
transactions in real-time while adapting to evolving attack patterns. 
We present FraudShield, a graph neural network framework for real-time 
fraud detection that scales to billion-edge transaction graphs. Unlike 
prior methods that require full graph access, FraudShield uses 
incremental updates with O(1) inference cost per transaction. On a 
proprietary dataset of 2.3 billion transactions from a major e-commerce 
platform, FraudShield achieves 94.2% precision at 80% recall, 
outperforming production baselines by 12%. The system has been deployed 
at [Company], processing 50K transactions per second and preventing 
an estimated $400M in annual fraud losses. We release an anonymized 
benchmark dataset and code.

KDD Paper Structure

├── Introduction
│   ├── Problem and impact
│   ├── Technical challenges
│   ├── Your approach
│   └── Contributions
├── Related Work
├── Preliminaries
│   ├── Problem definition
│   └── Notation
├── Method
│   ├── Overview
│   ├── Technical components
│   └── Complexity analysis
├── Experiments
│   ├── Datasets (with scale statistics)
│   ├── Baselines
│   ├── Main results
│   ├── Scalability experiments
│   ├── Ablation study
│   └── Case study / deployment
└── Conclusion

KDD-Specific Requirements

Scalability

Dataset sizes: Report number of nodes, edges, samples
Runtime analysis: Wall-clock time comparisons
Complexity: Time and space complexity stated
Scaling experiments: Show performance vs. data size

Industrial Deployment

Case studies: Real-world deployment stories
A/B tests: Online evaluation results (if applicable)
Production metrics: Business impact (if shareable)

Example Scalability Table

Table 4: Scalability Comparison (runtime in seconds)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Dataset     | Nodes  | Edges  | GCN   | GraphSAGE | Ours
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Cora        |  2.7K  |  5.4K  |  0.3  |    0.2    |  0.1
Citeseer    |  3.3K  |  4.7K  |  0.4  |    0.3    |  0.1
PubMed      | 19.7K  | 44.3K  |  1.2  |    0.8    |  0.3
ogbn-arxiv  | 169K   | 1.17M  |  8.4  |    4.2    |  1.6
ogbn-papers | 111M   | 1.6B   |  OOM  |   OOM     | 42.3
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Part 4: Common Elements Across CS Venues

Writing Quality

Clarity

One idea per sentence
Define terms before use
Use consistent notation

Precision

Exact numbers: “23.4%” not “about 20%”
Clear claims: Avoid hedging unless necessary
Specific comparisons: Name the baseline

Contribution Bullets

Used across all CS venues:

Our contributions are:
• We identify [problem/insight]
• We propose [method name] that [key innovation]
• We demonstrate [results] on [benchmarks]
• We release [code/data] at [URL]

Reproducibility Standards

All CS venues increasingly expect:

Code availability: GitHub link (anonymous for review)
Data availability: Public datasets or release plans
Full hyperparameters: Training details complete
Random seeds: Exact values for reproduction

Ethics and Broader Impact

NLP (ACL/EMNLP)

Limitations section: Required
Responsible NLP checklist: Ethical considerations
Bias analysis: For models affecting people

HCI (CHI)

IRB/Ethics approval: Required for human subjects
Informed consent: Procedure described
Privacy considerations: Data handling

KDD/WWW

Societal impact: Consider misuse potential
Privacy preservation: For sensitive data
Fairness analysis: When applicable

Venue Comparison Table

Aspect	ACL/EMNLP	CHI	KDD/WWW	SIGIR
Focus	NLP tasks	User studies	Scalable ML	IR/search
Evaluation	Benchmarks + human	User studies	Large-scale exp	Datasets
Theory weight	Moderate	Low	Moderate	Moderate
Industry value	High	Medium	Very high	High
Page limit	8 long / 4 short	10 + refs	9 + refs	10 + refs
Review style	ARR	Direct	Direct	Direct

Pre-Submission Checklist

All CS Venues

NLP-Specific

Standard benchmark results
Error analysis included
Human evaluation (for generation)
Responsible NLP checklist

HCI-Specific

IRB approval stated
Participant demographics
Direct quotes in findings
Design implications

Data Mining-Specific

Scalability experiments
Dataset size statistics
Runtime comparisons
Complexity analysis

Reference: Grants_Requirements

Grant Proposal Requirements

Comprehensive requirements and formatting guidelines for major federal and private foundation grant programs.

Last Updated: 2024

NSF (National Science Foundation)

Overview

Agency: National Science Foundation
Typical Award: $100K-$500K per year, 3-5 years
Success Rate: 20-25% (varies by program)
Review Criteria: Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts (equally weighted)

NSF Standard Grant Proposal

Page Limits (NSF PAPPG - Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide):

Component	Page Limit	Font	Spacing
Project Summary	1 page	Any readable, 10pt+	Any
Project Description	15 pages	Times Roman 11pt or similar	Single
References Cited	No limit	Times Roman 11pt	Single
Biographical Sketch	3 pages per person	Times Roman 11pt	Single
Budget Justification	3-5 pages	Any readable	Any
Current & Pending Support	No limit	Times Roman 11pt	Single
Facilities, Equipment	2 pages	Any readable	Any
Data Management Plan	2 pages	Any readable	Any

Margins: 1 inch (2.54 cm) on all sides (strictly enforced)

NSF Project Summary (1 page)

Required Sections (clearly labeled):

Overview (1-2 paragraphs)
- Concise description of research activity
- Objectives and methods
Intellectual Merit (1 paragraph)
- How project advances knowledge
- Innovation and transformative potential
- Qualifications of research team
Broader Impacts (1 paragraph)
- Benefits to society
- Broadening participation
- Dissemination and outreach

Format: Can be full-page text or sectioned
Audience: Non-specialists (broad scientific community)

Template: assets/grants/nsf_project_summary.tex

NSF Project Description (15 pages)

Typical Structure:

Introduction/Background (2-3 pages)
- Current state of knowledge
- Research gap
- Preliminary work/feasibility
- Team qualifications
Research Plan (8-10 pages)
- Objectives and hypotheses
- Methods and approach
- Timeline and milestones
- Expected outcomes
Broader Impacts (1-2 pages)
- Educational activities
- Broadening participation (underrepresented groups)
- Dissemination (publications, conferences, public outreach)
- Societal benefits
Results from Prior NSF Support (1 page, if applicable)
- Required if PI has had NSF support in past 5 years
- Intellectual merit and broader impacts of prior work
- Publications from prior NSF grants

Key Requirements:

Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts integrated throughout
Figures and tables allowed (count toward page limit)
Citations to references (use References Cited section)

Template: assets/grants/nsf_proposal_template.tex

NSF Biographical Sketch (3 pages)

Required Sections:

Professional Preparation: Institutions, degrees, fields
Appointments: Current and previous positions
Products: Up to 5 most relevant, up to 5 other significant products
- Can include publications, datasets, software, patents
Synergistic Activities: Up to 5 examples of impact beyond research

Format:

NSF template must be used (SciENcv or NSF-approved format)
No longer uses “Publications” but “Products”

NSF Broader Impacts

NSF-Recognized Categories (demonstrate ≥1):

Advance discovery while promoting teaching/learning
Broaden participation of underrepresented groups
Disseminate broadly to enhance scientific/technological understanding
Benefits to society (economic, health, environment, national security)
Develop scientific workforce and infrastructure

Best Practices:

Be specific with measurable outcomes
Explain how activities will be assessed
Integrate with research (don’t treat as “add-on”)
Budget for broader impacts activities

Examples:

K-12 outreach programs
Curriculum development
Training underrepresented students
Public science communication
Open-source software development

NSF Budget

Typical Categories:

Senior Personnel: PI, co-PIs (% effort, salary)
Other Personnel: Postdocs, graduate students, undergrads
Fringe Benefits: Institutional rates
Equipment: Items >$5,000
Travel: Domestic and foreign
Participant Support: Workshops, conferences (separate category)
Other Direct Costs: Materials, publication, subawards
Indirect Costs: Institutional F&A rate

Budget Justification: Explain need for each item

NSF Data Management Plan (2 pages)

Required Content:

Types of data produced
Standards for data format and metadata
Policies for access and sharing
Policies for re-use and redistribution
Plans for archiving and preservation

Acceptable Approaches:

Deposit in domain-specific repository
Institutional repository
Data available upon request (with restrictions justification)

NSF Review Process

Review Criteria (equally weighted):

Intellectual Merit:
- What is the potential to advance knowledge?
- How well-conceived and organized?
- Qualifications of PI and team?
- Availability of resources?
Broader Impacts:
- What are the potential benefits to society?
- How well-suited to achieve broader impacts?

Panel Review: Proposals reviewed by panel of experts
Timeline: Typically 6 months from deadline to award decision

NSF LaTeX Templates

Full Proposal: assets/grants/nsf_proposal_template.tex
Project Summary: assets/grants/nsf_project_summary.tex
Biographical Sketch: Use NSF SciENcv or template

Resources:

NSF PAPPG: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg
NSF Fastlane: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/

NIH (National Institutes of Health)

Overview

Agency: National Institutes of Health
Funding Mechanisms:

R01: Research Project Grant (most common)
R21: Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant
K Awards: Career Development Awards Success Rate: 10-20% (varies by institute and mechanism)

NIH R01 Research Grant

Page Limits (Research Strategy):

Component	Page Limit	Font	Spacing
Specific Aims	1 page	Arial 11pt minimum	Any
Research Strategy	12 pages	Arial 11pt minimum	0.5 inch margins minimum
- Significance	Part of 12
- Innovation	Part of 12
- Approach	Part of 12
Bibliography	No limit	Arial 11pt
Biographical Sketch	5 pages per person	Arial 11pt

Margins: 0.5 inch minimum (all sides)
Paper Size: Letter (8.5 × 11 inches)

NIH Specific Aims Page (1 page)

THE MOST CRITICAL COMPONENT

Structure (recommended):

Opening paragraph (2-3 sentences)
- Hook: Significance of problem
- Gap: What’s not known
Long-term goal (1 sentence)
- Overarching research vision
Objective (1-2 sentences)
- What this proposal will accomplish
- Central hypothesis
Rationale (2-3 sentences)
- Why you expect success
- Preliminary data supporting hypothesis
Specific Aims (3 aims typical)
- Aim 1: [Title]. [1-2 sentence description. Working hypothesis. Expected outcome.]
- Aim 2: [Title]. [1-2 sentence description. Working hypothesis. Expected outcome.]
- Aim 3: [Title]. [1-2 sentence description. Working hypothesis. Expected outcome.]
Payoff paragraph (2-3 sentences)
- Impact and significance
- Innovation
- Future directions

Best Practices:

Crystal clear, compelling narrative
State hypothesis explicitly
Explain expected outcomes
Show innovation and impact

Template: assets/grants/nih_specific_aims.tex

NIH Research Strategy (12 pages)

Required Sections:

1. Significance (typically 2-3 pages)

Importance: Critical barrier to progress
Knowledge gap: What’s not known
Impact: How project advances field
Rigor: Scientific premise/prior work
References: Cite key literature

2. Innovation (typically 1-2 pages)

Novelty: New concepts, approaches, methods
Challenge paradigms: Shift thinking
Refined/new methodologies: Technical innovation
Novel applications: Existing tools in new ways

3. Approach (typically 7-9 pages)

For Each Aim:

Rationale: Why this aim
Experimental design: Detailed methods
Expected outcomes: What results mean
Potential problems & alternatives: Mitigation strategies
Rigor and reproducibility: Controls, replication, statistics
Timeline: When each aim completed

Additional Approach Content:

Preliminary data (critical for R01)
Power analyses for sample sizes
Statistical analysis plans
Rigor of prior research cited

NIH Biographical Sketch (5 pages)

Sections (NIH format):

Personal Statement (4 sentences explaining why you’re suited)
Positions, Honors, and Scientific Appointments
Contributions to Science (Up to 5 contributions, up to 4 pubs each)
Research Support (current and completed grants, overlap checked)

Format: Must use NIH template (fillable PDF or format page)

NIH Review Criteria

Scored Criteria (1-9 scale, 1=best):

Significance: Importance, impact
Investigator(s): Qualifications, track record
Innovation: Novel concepts, methods
Approach: Feasibility, rigor, design
Environment: Institutional support, resources

Additional Considerations (not scored but noted):

Vertebrate animals
Biohazards
Human subjects protections
Inclusion of women, minorities, children
Budget appropriateness

Overall Impact Score: 1-9 (synthesizes all criteria)

NIH R21 (Exploratory Grant)

Key Differences from R01:

Research Strategy: 6 pages (vs. 12 for R01)
Duration: 2 years maximum
Budget: $275K total costs over 2 years
Preliminary data: Not required (exploratory nature)
Purpose: High-risk, high-reward projects; new directions

When to Choose R21 vs. R01:

R21: Early-stage, limited preliminary data, high-risk
R01: Established line of research, strong preliminary data

NIH K Awards (Career Development)

Mechanisms:

K01: Mentored Research Scientist Development Award
K08: Mentored Clinical Scientist Research Career Development Award
K23: Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award
K99/R00: Pathway to Independence Award (postdoc to faculty)

Key Components:

Career Development Plan: Training goals, timeline
Research Plan: 6-12 pages (mechanism-dependent)
Mentor(s): Letters of support, mentoring plan
Institutional Commitment: Environment, resources
Protected Time: 75% research effort typical

NIH Budget

Modular vs. Detailed:

Modular: ≤$250K direct costs per year (25K increments)
Detailed: >$250K direct costs per year

Modular Budget: Only need budget justification for personnel, consortium, equipment >$25K

Budget Period: Year-by-year (usually 5 years for R01)

NIH LaTeX Templates

R01 Full Proposal: assets/grants/nih_r01_template.tex
Specific Aims: assets/grants/nih_specific_aims.tex
Biographical Sketch: Use NIH fillable PDF or format page

Resources:

NIH Application Guide: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide.html
SF424 Forms: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/forms-e/general-forms-e.pdf

DOE (Department of Energy)

Overview

Agency: U.S. Department of Energy
Offices:

Office of Science: Basic research (BES, BER, ASCR, NP, HEP, FES)
ARPA-E: High-risk, high-reward energy technologies
EERE: Energy efficiency and renewable energy

Typical Award: $200K-$1M per year, 3 years
Success Rate: 10-30% (varies by program)

DOE Office of Science Proposal

Page Limits (typical, varies by FOA):

Component	Page Limit	Format
Project Narrative	10-20 pages	Times 11pt, 1” margins
References	No limit
Budget Justification	3-5 pages
Biographical Sketches	2-3 pages each
Current & Pending	No limit
Facilities & Resources	No limit
Data Management Plan	2 pages

DOE Project Narrative Structure

Typical Sections:

Background and Significance (2-3 pages)
- Energy relevance
- Current state of knowledge
- Research need
Preliminary Work (1-2 pages)
- Team’s qualifications
- Relevant prior results
Research Plan (10-15 pages)
- Objectives: Clear goals
- Technical approach: Detailed methods
- Milestones and deliverables: Specific, measurable
- Timeline: Gantt chart common
- Team and management: Roles, collaboration
Broader Impacts (1-2 pages)
- Workforce development
- Technology transfer potential
- Publications and dissemination

DOE-Specific Requirements

Energy Relevance: Must clearly tie to DOE mission

Basic science: Fundamental understanding for energy applications
Applied: Energy efficiency, renewable energy, grid, storage

Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs): Often required to specify

TRL 1-3: Basic research, proof of concept
TRL 4-6: Component/subsystem validation
TRL 7-9: System demonstration, deployment

National Laboratory Collaboration: Encouraged

Include lab scientists as co-PIs or collaborators
Letter of collaboration from lab

Cost Sharing: Sometimes required (check FOA)

Can be in-kind (equipment, time)
Must be documented

DOE Budget Considerations

Allowable Costs:

Personnel (salaries, benefits)
Equipment
Travel (especially to DOE national labs)
Materials and supplies
Subcontracts
Indirect costs (negotiated F&A rate)

Unallowable:

Construction
Entertainment
Some indirect costs (depends on institution type)

DOE LaTeX Template

Template: assets/grants/doe_proposal_template.tex

Resources:

DOE Office of Science Funding: https://science.osti.gov/grants
EERE Funding: https://www.energy.gov/eere/funding/eere-funding-opportunities

DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency)

Overview

Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DoD)
Mission: High-risk, high-reward research for national security
Typical Award: $500K-$5M per year, 2-4 years
Success Rate: 5-15% (highly competitive)

DARPA BAA (Broad Agency Announcement) Response

Page Limits (typical, varies by BAA):

Component	Page Limit	Format
Technical and Management Proposal	20-25 pages	Times 12pt, 1” margins
Cost Proposal	Separate volume

DARPA Technical Proposal Structure

Key Sections:

Executive Summary (1 page)
- Vision and impact
- Technical approach overview
- Team qualifications
Heilmeier Catechism (1-2 pages) DARPA requires answering these questions:
- What are you trying to do? Articulate objectives without jargon
- How is it done today? Limitations? Current practice and shortcomings
- What is new in your approach? Innovation
- Who cares? Impact if successful
- If successful, what difference will it make? Transformation
- What are the risks? Technical risks and mitigation
- How much will it cost? Budget overview
- How long will it take? Timeline
- What are the mid-term and final exams? Milestones for success
Technical Approach (10-15 pages)
- Detailed technical plan
- Task breakdown
- Risk mitigation
- Innovation justification
Management Plan (2-3 pages)
- Team organization
- Key personnel roles
- Collaboration approach
- Milestone schedule (Gantt chart)
Capabilities and Experience (2-3 pages)
- Team qualifications
- Relevant facilities and equipment
- Similar past programs
Transition Plan (1-2 pages)
- Path to DoD transition
- End users identified
- Technology transfer approach

DARPA-Specific Considerations

Engagement with Program Manager (PM):

Strongly encouraged to contact PM before submission
Discuss idea alignment with program goals
PM can provide feedback on approach

Transformative Impact:

Must demonstrate potential for “game-changing” impact
Not incremental improvements

Technical Risk:

High-risk approaches acceptable (even encouraged)
Must show mitigation strategies

National Security Relevance:

Clear connection to defense applications
Dual-use (civilian + military) often valuable

Metrics for Success:

Quantifiable milestones
“Go/no-go” decision points

DARPA Budget

Full Cost Accounting: Detailed justification required

Labor: Hourly rates, hours per task
Materials: Itemized
Equipment: Justification for purchases
Travel: Specific trips with purpose
Subcontracts: Detailed subcontract budgets
Indirect Costs: Negotiated rates

Cost Realism: Budget must be realistic for proposed work

DARPA LaTeX Template

Template: assets/grants/darpa_baa_response.tex

Resources:

DARPA Opportunities: https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/opportunities
BAA Listings: SAM.gov (formerly FedBizOpps)

Private Foundations

Gates Foundation

Focus Areas: Global health, poverty alleviation, education
Typical Award: Varies widely ($100K to $10M+)

Proposal Requirements:

Letter of Inquiry (2-3 pages): Initial screening
Full Proposal (if invited): 10-15 pages
Theory of Change: How intervention leads to impact
Monitoring & Evaluation: Metrics, data collection

Key Emphases:

Scalability and sustainability
Impact in low-resource settings
Partnerships with local organizations
Data-driven decision making

Wellcome Trust

Focus: Biomedical research, global health
Geographic: UK and international
Typical Award: £100K to £5M

Proposal Format (varies by scheme):

Investigator Awards: Track record and research vision
Project Grants: Specific research project
Career Development: Early/mid-career researchers

Requirements:

Research plan
Track record
Value for money justification
Patient and public involvement

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)

Type: Investigator appointments (not grants)
Award: ~$9M over 7 years (renewable)
Focus: Biomedical research, early-career scientists

Selection:

Nomination by institution
Track record of innovation
Research vision for next 5-7 years
Scientific leadership potential

Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI)

Focus: Science, education, justice & opportunity
Award Types:

Imaging: Advanced imaging technologies
Neurodegeneration Challenge: AD, ALS, PD, FTD
Single-Cell Biology: Tools and resources

Emphasis:

Open science (data sharing, open-source)
Collaboration across institutions
Technology development
Diversity and inclusion

Quick Reference Table

Agency	Typical Award	Duration	Key Criteria	Template
NSF	$100K-500K/yr	3-5 yrs	Intellectual Merit + Broader Impacts	`nsf_proposal_template.tex`
NIH R01	$250K-500K/yr	5 yrs	Significance, Innovation, Approach	`nih_r01_template.tex`
NIH R21	$275K total	2 yrs	Exploratory, high-risk	`nih_r21_template.tex`
DOE	$200K-1M/yr	3 yrs	Energy relevance, TRLs	`doe_proposal_template.tex`
DARPA	$500K-5M/yr	2-4 yrs	Transformative, Heilmeier	`darpa_baa_response.tex`

General Best Practices

Writing Effective Proposals

Start early: 2-3 months minimum
Read the call carefully: Follow requirements exactly
Know your reviewers: Write for expert audience
Tell a story: Compelling narrative with clear logic
Be specific: Concrete objectives, methods, outcomes
Show feasibility: Preliminary data, expertise
Address weaknesses: Acknowledge and mitigate risks

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Vague objectives: “Understand X” → “Determine whether X causes Y”
Lack of innovation: Incremental vs. transformative
Poor broader impacts (NSF): Generic, unintegrated
Weak specific aims (NIH): Most critical page!
Missing preliminary data: Show feasibility
Unrealistic timeline: Be honest about what’s achievable
Formatting violations: Auto-rejection possible
Typos and errors: Suggests lack of care

Timeline for Proposal Development

3 months before deadline:

Identify opportunity
Assemble team
Outline aims/objectives

2 months before:

Draft aims/objectives
Preliminary budget
Contact program officer (if allowed)

1 month before:

Full first draft
Internal review
Revise based on feedback

2 weeks before:

Final revisions
Proofread carefully
Assemble all documents

1 week before:

Institutional review/approval
Budget finalization
Submission system upload

2 days before:

Final check
Submit (don’t wait until deadline!)

Resources

Grant Writing Guides

NSF PAPPG: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg
NIH Application Guide: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide.html
GrantForward (database): https://www.grantforward.com/
Pivot (database): https://pivot.proquest.com/

Institutional Resources

Office of Sponsored Research (OSR)
Grant writing workshops
Internal mock reviews
Budget/compliance offices

Summary

Key Takeaways:

Know the agency: Different missions, different emphases
Follow the rules: Page limits, fonts, margins strictly enforced
Tell a compelling story: Clear problem, innovative solution, feasible plan
Demonstrate impact: Intellectual merit (NSF/NIH) or mission relevance (DOE/DARPA)
Show feasibility: Preliminary data, team expertise, resources
Budget realistically: Justify all costs
Proofread carefully: Typos undermine credibility
Submit early: Technical glitches happen

Remember: Grant writing is a skill developed over time. Seek feedback, revise, and persist!

Reference: Journals_Formatting

Journal Formatting Requirements

Comprehensive formatting requirements and submission guidelines for major scientific journals across disciplines.

Last Updated: 2024

Nature Portfolio

Nature

Journal Type: Top-tier multidisciplinary science journal
Publisher: Nature Publishing Group
Impact Factor: ~64 (varies by year)

Formatting Requirements:

Length: Articles ~3,000 words (excluding Methods, References, Figure Legends)
Structure: Title, Authors, Affiliations, Abstract (≤200 words), Main text, Methods, References, Acknowledgements, Author Contributions, Competing Interests, Figure Legends
Format: Single column for submission (final published version is two-column)
Font: Any standard font (Times, Arial, Helvetica), 12pt
Line spacing: Double-spaced
Margins: 2.5 cm (1 inch) all sides
Page numbers: Required on all pages
Citations: Numbered sequentially in superscript¹’²’³
References: Nature style (abbreviated journal names)
- Format: Author, A. A., Author, B. B. & Author, C. C. Article title. Journal Abbrev. vol, pages (year).
- Example: Watson, J. D. & Crick, F. H. C. Molecular structure of nucleic acids. Nature 171, 737–738 (1953).
Figures:
- Format: TIFF, EPS, PDF (vector preferred)
- Resolution: 300-600 dpi for photos, 1000 dpi for line art
- Color: RGB or CMYK
- Size: Fit to single column (89 mm) or double column (183 mm)
- Legends: Provided separately, not embedded in figure
Tables: Editable format (Word, Excel), not as images
Supplementary Info: Unlimited, PDF format preferred

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/nature_article.tex

Author Guidelines: https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors

Nature Communications

Journal Type: Open-access multidisciplinary journal
Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

Formatting Requirements:

Length: No strict limit (typically 5,000-8,000 words)
Structure: Same as Nature (Title, Abstract, Main text, Methods, References, etc.)
Format: Single column
Font: Times New Roman, Arial, or similar, 12pt
Line spacing: Double-spaced
Margins: 2.5 cm all sides
Citations: Numbered sequentially in superscript
References: Nature style (same as Nature)
Figures: Same requirements as Nature
Tables: Same requirements as Nature
Open Access: All articles are open access (APC applies)

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/nature_communications.tex

Nature Methods, Nature Biotechnology, Nature Machine Intelligence

Formatting: Same as Nature Communications (Nature family journals share similar formatting)

Discipline-Specific Notes:

Nature Methods: Emphasize methodological innovation and validation
Nature Biotechnology: Focus on biotechnology applications and translation
Nature Machine Intelligence: AI/ML applications across disciplines

Science Family

Science

Journal Type: Top-tier multidisciplinary science journal
Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Formatting Requirements:

Length:
- Research Articles: 2,500 words (text only, excluding refs/figs)
- Reports: 2,500 words maximum
Structure: Title, Authors, Affiliations, Abstract (≤125 words), Main text, Materials and Methods, References, Acknowledgments, Supplementary Materials
Format: Single column for submission
Font: Times New Roman, 12pt
Line spacing: Double-spaced
Margins: 1 inch all sides
Citations: Numbered sequentially in parentheses (1, 2, 3)
References: Science style (no article titles in main refs, moved to supplementary)
- Format: A. Author, B. Author, Journal Abbrev. vol, pages (year).
- Example: J. D. Watson, F. H. C. Crick, Nature 171, 737 (1953).
Figures:
- Format: PDF, EPS, TIFF
- Resolution: 300 dpi minimum
- Color: RGB
- Size: Maximum width 9 cm (single column) or 18.3 cm (double column)
- Figures count toward page limit
Tables: Include in main text or as separate files
Supplementary Materials: Extensive materials allowed

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/science_article.tex

Author Guidelines: https://www.science.org/content/page/instructions-authors

Science Advances

Journal Type: Open-access multidisciplinary journal
Publisher: AAAS

Formatting Requirements:

Length: No strict word limit (but concise writing encouraged)
Structure: Similar to Science (more flexible)
Format: Single column
Font: Times New Roman, 12pt
Citations: Numbered in parentheses
References: Science style
Figures: Same as Science
Open Access: All articles open access

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/science_advances.tex

PLOS (Public Library of Science)

PLOS ONE

Journal Type: Open-access multidisciplinary journal
Publisher: Public Library of Science

Formatting Requirements:

Length: No maximum length
Structure: Title, Authors, Affiliations, Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions (optional), References, Supporting Information
Format: Editable file (LaTeX, Word, RTF)
Font: Times, Arial, or Helvetica, 10-12pt
Line spacing: Double-spaced
Margins: 1 inch (2.54 cm) all sides
Page numbers: Required
Citations: Vancouver style, numbered in brackets [1], [2], [3]
References: Vancouver/NLM format
- Format: Author AA, Author BB, Author CC. Article title. Journal Abbrev. Year;vol(issue):pages. doi:xx.xxxx
- Example: Watson JD, Crick FHC. Molecular structure of nucleic acids. Nature. 1953;171(4356):737-738.
Figures:
- Format: TIFF, EPS, PDF, PNG
- Resolution: 300-600 dpi
- Color: RGB
- Legends: Provided in main text after references
Tables: Editable format, one per page
Data Availability: Statement required
Open Access: All articles open access (APC applies)

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/plos_one.tex

Author Guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines

PLOS Biology, PLOS Computational Biology, etc.

Formatting: Similar to PLOS ONE with discipline-specific variations

Key Differences:

PLOS Biology: More selective, emphasizes broad significance
PLOS Comp Bio: Focus on computational methods and models

Cell Press

Cell

Journal Type: Top-tier biology journal
Publisher: Cell Press (Elsevier)

Formatting Requirements:

Length:
- Articles: ~5,000 words (excluding Methods, References)
- Short Articles: ~2,500 words
Structure: Summary (≤150 words), Keywords, Introduction, Results, Discussion, Experimental Procedures, Acknowledgments, Author Contributions, Declaration of Interests, References
Format: Double-spaced
Font: 12pt
Margins: 1 inch all sides
Citations: Author-year format (Smith et al., 2023)
References: Cell style
- Format: Author, A.A., and Author, B.B. (Year). Title. Journal vol, pages.
- Example: Watson, J.D., and Crick, F.H. (1953). Molecular structure of nucleic acids. Nature 171, 737-738.
Figures:
- Format: TIFF, EPS preferred
- Resolution: 300 dpi photos, 1000 dpi line art
- Color: RGB or CMYK
- Multipanel figures common
Tables: Editable format
eTOC Blurb: 30-50 word summary required
Graphical Abstract: Required

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/cell_article.tex

Author Guidelines: https://www.cell.com/cell/authors

Neuron, Immunity, Molecular Cell, Developmental Cell

Formatting: Similar to Cell with discipline-specific expectations

IEEE Transactions

IEEE Transactions on [Various Topics]

Journal Type: Engineering and computer science journals
Publisher: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

Formatting Requirements:

Length: Varies by transaction (typically 8-12 pages in final format)
Structure: Abstract, Index Terms, Introduction, [Body sections], Conclusion, Acknowledgment, References, Biographies
Format: Two-column
Font: Times New Roman, 10pt
Column spacing: 0.17 inch (4.23 mm)
Margins:
- Top: 19 mm (0.75 in)
- Bottom: 25 mm (1 in)
- Side: 17 mm (0.67 in)
Citations: Numbered in square brackets [1], [2], [3]
References: IEEE style
- Format: [1] A. A. Author, “Title of paper,” Journal Abbrev., vol. x, no. x, pp. xxx-xxx, Mon. Year.
- Example: [1] J. D. Watson and F. H. C. Crick, “Molecular structure of nucleic acids,” Nature, vol. 171, pp. 737-738, Apr. 1953.
Figures:
- Format: EPS, PDF (vector), TIFF (raster)
- Resolution: 600-1200 dpi line art, 300 dpi grayscale/color
- Color: RGB for online, CMYK for print if needed
- Position: Top or bottom of column
Tables: LaTeX table environment, positioned at top/bottom
Equations: Numbered consecutively

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/ieee_trans.tex

Author Guidelines: https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/

IEEE Access

Journal Type: Open-access multidisciplinary engineering journal
Publisher: IEEE

Formatting: Similar to IEEE Transactions

Length: No page limits
Open Access: All articles open access
Rapid publication: Faster review than Transactions

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/ieee_access.tex

ACM Publications

ACM Transactions

Journal Type: Computer science transactions
Publisher: Association for Computing Machinery

Formatting Requirements:

Length: No strict limit
Structure: Abstract, CCS Concepts, Keywords, ACM Reference Format, Introduction, [Body], Conclusion, Acknowledgments, References
Format: Two-column (final), single-column for submission OK
Font: Depends on template (usually 9-10pt)
Class: Use acmart LaTeX document class
Citations: Numbered [1] or author-year depending on venue
References: ACM style
- Format: Author. Year. Title. Journal vol, issue (Year), pages. DOI
- Example: James D. Watson and Francis H. C. Crick. 1953. Molecular structure of nucleic acids. Nature 171, 4356 (1953), 737-738. https://doi.org/10.1038/171737a0
Figures: EPS, PDF (vector preferred), high-resolution raster
CCS Concepts: Required (ACM Computing Classification System)
Keywords: Required

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/acm_article.tex

Author Guidelines: https://www.acm.org/publications/authors

Springer Journals

General Springer Journals

Publisher: Springer Nature

Formatting Requirements:

Length: Varies by journal (check specific journal)
Format: Single column for submission (LaTeX or Word)
Font: 10-12pt
Line spacing: Double or 1.5
Citations: Numbered or author-year (varies by journal)
References: Springer style (similar to Vancouver or author-year)
- Numbered: Author AA, Author BB (Year) Title. Journal vol:pages
- Author-year: Author AA, Author BB (Year) Title. Journal vol:pages
Figures: TIFF, EPS, PDF; 300+ dpi
Tables: Editable format
Document Class: svjour3 for many Springer journals

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/springer_article.tex

Author Guidelines: Varies by specific journal

Elsevier Journals

General Elsevier Journals

Publisher: Elsevier

Formatting Requirements:

Length: Varies widely by journal
Format: Single column (LaTeX or Word)
Font: 12pt
Line spacing: Double-spaced
Citations: Numbered or author-year (check journal guide)
References: Style varies by journal (Harvard, Vancouver, numbered)
- Check specific journal’s “Guide for Authors”
Figures: TIFF, EPS; 300+ dpi
Tables: Editable format
Document Class: elsarticle LaTeX class

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/elsevier_article.tex

Author Guidelines: https://www.elsevier.com/authors (select specific journal)

BMC Journals

BMC Biology, BMC Bioinformatics, etc.

Publisher: BioMed Central (Springer Nature)

Formatting Requirements:

Length: No maximum length
Structure: Abstract (structured), Keywords, Background, [Methods/Results/Discussion], Conclusions, Abbreviations, Declarations (Ethics, Consent, Availability, Competing interests, Funding, Authors’ contributions, Acknowledgements), References
Format: Single column
Font: Arial or Times, 12pt
Line spacing: Double
Citations: Vancouver style, numbered in brackets [1]
References: Vancouver/NLM format
Figures: TIFF, EPS, PNG; 300+ dpi
Tables: Editable
Open Access: All BMC journals are open access
Data Availability: Statement required

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/bmc_article.tex

Author Guidelines: https://www.biomedcentral.com/getpublished

Frontiers Journals

Frontiers in [Various Topics]

Publisher: Frontiers Media

Formatting Requirements:

Length: Varies by article type (Research Article ~12 pages, Brief Research Report ~4 pages)
Structure: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Data Availability Statement, Ethics Statement, Author Contributions, Funding, Acknowledgments, Conflict of Interest, References
Format: Single column
Font: Times New Roman, 12pt
Line spacing: Double
Citations: Numbered (Frontiers style)
References: Frontiers format
- Format: Author A., Author B., Author C. (Year). Title. Journal Abbrev. vol:pages. doi
- Example: Watson J. D., Crick F. H. C. (1953). Molecular structure of nucleic acids. Nature 171:737-738. doi:10.1038/171737a0
Figures: TIFF, EPS; 300 dpi minimum
Tables: Editable
Open Access: All Frontiers journals are open access
Figure Legends: Detailed, 350 words max per figure

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/frontiers_article.tex

Author Guidelines: https://www.frontiersin.org/guidelines/author-guidelines

Specialized Journals

PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

Formatting Requirements:

Length: 6 pages (text, figures, tables combined)
Abstract: 250 words max
Significance Statement: 120 words max (required)
Structure: Abstract, Significance, Main text, Materials and Methods, Acknowledgments, References
Format: Single column
Citations: Numbered
References: PNAS style
LaTeX Class: pnas-new

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/pnas_article.tex

Physical Review Letters (PRL)

Publisher: American Physical Society

Formatting Requirements:

Length: 4 pages (including figures and references)
Format: Two-column (REVTeX 4.2)
Abstract: No more than 600 characters
Citations: Numbered
References: APS style
Document Class: revtex4-2

LaTeX Template: assets/journals/prl_article.tex

New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)

Formatting Requirements:

Length: Original Articles ~3,000 words
Structure: Abstract (structured, 250 words), Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References
Format: Double-spaced
Citations: Numbered
References: NEJM style (modified Vancouver)
Figures: High resolution, professional quality
Word submission preferred (LaTeX less common)

The Lancet

Formatting Requirements:

Length: Articles ~3,000 words
Abstract: Structured, 300 words
Structure: Panel (summary box), Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References
Citations: Numbered
References: Lancet style (modified Vancouver)
Word preferred for submission

Quick Reference Table

Journal	Max Length	Format	Citations	Template
Nature	~3,000 words	Single col	Superscript	`nature_article.tex`
Science	2,500 words	Single col	(1) brackets	`science_article.tex`
PLOS ONE	Unlimited	Single col	[1] Vancouver	`plos_one.tex`
Cell	~5,000 words	Double sp	(Author, year)	`cell_article.tex`
IEEE Trans	8-12 pages	Two col	[1] IEEE	`ieee_trans.tex`
ACM Trans	Variable	Two col	[1] or author-yr	`acm_article.tex`
Springer	Variable	Single col	Numbered/author-yr	`springer_article.tex`
BMC	Unlimited	Single col	[1] Vancouver	`bmc_article.tex`
Frontiers	~12 pages	Single col	Numbered	`frontiers_article.tex`

Notes

Always check official guidelines: Journal requirements change; verify before submission
Template currency: These templates are updated regularly but may lag official changes
Supplementary materials: Most journals allow extensive supplementary materials
Preprint policies: Check journal’s preprint policy (most allow arXiv, bioRxiv)
Open access options: Many subscription journals offer open access for a fee
LaTeX vs. Word: Most journals accept both; LaTeX preferred for math-heavy content

Getting Official Templates

Many journals provide official LaTeX templates:

Nature: Download from journal website
IEEE: IEEEtran class (widely available)
ACM: acmart class (CTAN)
Elsevier: elsarticle class (CTAN)
Springer: svjour3 class (journal website)

Check journal’s “For Authors” or “Submit” page for the most current templates.

Reference: Medical_Journal_Styles

Medical Journal Writing Style Guide

Comprehensive writing guide for NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine, and other major medical journals.

Last Updated: 2024

Overview

Medical journals prioritize clinical relevance, patient outcomes, and evidence-based practice. Writing must be precise, evidence-focused, and directly applicable to clinical decision-making.

Key Philosophy

“Every sentence should help a clinician make better decisions for their patients.”

Primary Goal: Communicate research findings that can improve patient care and clinical practice.

Audience and Tone

Target Reader

Practicing physicians and clinicians
Clinical researchers
Healthcare policymakers
Medical educators
Some public health and patient advocacy readers

Tone Characteristics

Characteristic	Description
Evidence-focused	Appropriate hedging based on study design
Patient-centered	Focus on patient outcomes, not just biomarkers
Clinical	Emphasize practical applicability
Precise	Exact numbers, confidence intervals, NNT
Measured	Claims match evidence strength

Voice

Passive voice common: “Patients were randomized to…”
First person acceptable: “We conducted a trial…”
Third person for patients: “Patients” not “subjects”

Abstract: Structured Format

Overview

Most major medical journals require structured abstracts with labeled sections. This is one of the few venues where structured abstracts are expected.

Standard Structure (IMRAD-based)

Background: [Why this study was needed - 1-2 sentences]

Methods: [Study design, setting, participants, intervention, 
main outcomes - 2-4 sentences]

Results: [Primary and key secondary outcomes with statistics - 
3-5 sentences]

Conclusions: [Clinical implications, with appropriate hedging - 
1-2 sentences]

Word Limits by Journal

Journal	Abstract Limit
NEJM	250 words
Lancet	300 words
JAMA	350 words
BMJ	300 words
Annals	325 words

Example Structured Abstract (NEJM Style)

BACKGROUND
Type 2 diabetes is associated with increased cardiovascular risk, but 
the effects of intensive glucose control on cardiovascular outcomes 
remain uncertain.

METHODS
We randomly assigned 10,251 patients with type 2 diabetes and established 
cardiovascular disease to receive intensive glucose-lowering therapy 
(target HbA1c <6.0%) or standard therapy (target HbA1c 7.0-7.9%). The 
primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, 
nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes.

RESULTS
After a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary outcome occurred in 
352 patients (6.9%) in the intensive-therapy group and in 371 patients 
(7.2%) in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.78 
to 1.04; P=0.16). Severe hypoglycemia was more common with intensive 
therapy (3.1% vs. 1.0%; P<0.001). All-cause mortality was similar 
between groups (5.0% vs. 4.8%; hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.24).

CONCLUSIONS
In patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease, 
intensive glucose lowering did not significantly reduce major 
cardiovascular events compared with standard therapy and was associated 
with increased severe hypoglycemia.

Evidence Language

The Cardinal Rule

Match your language to your evidence strength.

Language by Study Design

Study Design	Appropriate Language
Meta-analysis of RCTs	”Treatment X reduces mortality…”
Large RCT	”Treatment X reduced mortality in this trial…”
Small RCT	”Treatment X was associated with reduced mortality…”
Cohort study	”Treatment X was associated with lower mortality…”
Case-control	”Treatment X was associated with reduced odds of death…”
Cross-sectional	”Treatment X use was associated with lower mortality…”
Case series	”These cases suggest that treatment X may…”
Case report	”This case illustrates that treatment X can…”

Causal Language Rules

❌ Never say (unless RCT): “Treatment X prevents…” / “Treatment X causes…”

✅ Use for observational: “Treatment X was associated with…” / “Treatment X was linked to…”

✅ Use for RCTs: “Treatment X resulted in…” / “Treatment X reduced…”

Hedging Phrases

Certainty Level	Phrases
High	”demonstrates,” “shows,” “confirms”
Moderate	”suggests,” “indicates,” “supports”
Low	”may,” “might,” “could potentially”
Speculative	”it is possible that,” “one interpretation is”

Reporting Numbers

Absolute vs. Relative Risk

Always report both absolute and relative measures.

❌ Incomplete: “Treatment reduced mortality by 50%”

✅ Complete: “Treatment reduced relative mortality by 50% (absolute risk reduction, 2.5 percentage points; number needed to treat, 40)“

Confidence Intervals

Always include 95% confidence intervals.

❌ “The hazard ratio was 0.75”

✅ “The hazard ratio was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.91)“

P-values

Report exact P-values when possible: P=0.003
Use P<0.001 for very small values
Consider clinical significance alongside statistical significance

Number Needed to Treat (NNT)

Include NNT for clinically important outcomes:

"The intervention prevented one additional death for every 40 patients 
treated (NNT=40; 95% CI, 28 to 67)."

Introduction

Length and Structure

3-4 paragraphs (500-700 words)
Focus on clinical problem and rationale

Paragraph Structure

Paragraph 1: Clinical Problem

Burden of disease (incidence, prevalence, mortality)
Impact on patients and healthcare system
Why this matters clinically

"Type 2 diabetes affects more than 450 million adults worldwide and is 
a leading cause of cardiovascular disease, renal failure, and premature 
death. Despite advances in glucose-lowering therapies, patients with 
diabetes continue to face a two- to four-fold increased risk of 
cardiovascular events compared with the general population."

Paragraph 2: Current Knowledge and Limitations

What treatments/approaches exist
What evidence gaps remain
Why more research was needed

Paragraph 3: Rationale and Objectives

Why this study was conducted
Clear statement of objectives/hypothesis
Primary outcome stated

"We therefore conducted a randomized, controlled trial to evaluate 
whether intensive glucose-lowering therapy, compared with standard 
therapy, would reduce major cardiovascular events in patients with 
type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease."

Methods

Structure (CONSORT/STROBE Aligned)

Medical methods sections follow reporting guidelines:

METHODS
├── Study Design
├── Setting and Participants
│   ├── Eligibility Criteria
│   └── Recruitment
├── Randomization and Blinding (for RCTs)
├── Interventions
├── Outcomes
│   ├── Primary Outcome
│   └── Secondary Outcomes
├── Sample Size Calculation
├── Statistical Analysis
├── Ethics Approval
└── Registration

Key Elements

Eligibility Criteria

List inclusion and exclusion criteria explicitly
Be specific (age ranges, disease definitions, lab values)

Primary Outcome

Define precisely, including timing of assessment
State how it was measured

Statistical Analysis

Pre-specified analysis plan
Handling of missing data
Subgroup analyses (pre-specified vs. exploratory)

Example Methods Paragraph

We enrolled adults aged 40 years or older with type 2 diabetes (defined 
as HbA1c ≥6.5% or use of glucose-lowering medication) and established 
cardiovascular disease (previous myocardial infarction, stroke, or 
revascularization procedure). Patients were excluded if they had an 
HbA1c level below 7.5% or above 11.0%, estimated glomerular filtration 
rate below 30 ml per minute per 1.73 m² of body-surface area, or a 
cardiovascular event within the past 30 days.

Results

Structure

Opening: Participant Flow

Screening, enrollment, randomization, follow-up, analysis
Reference CONSORT flow diagram

Baseline Characteristics

Table 1: Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics
Note any imbalances

Primary Outcome

Report first and prominently
Include point estimate, CI, P-value
State clinical significance

Secondary Outcomes

Report all pre-specified secondary outcomes
Be cautious about multiple comparisons

Adverse Events

Report serious adverse events systematically
Include deaths, hospitalizations, SAEs by category

Example Results Paragraph

Of 12,537 patients assessed for eligibility, 10,251 underwent 
randomization: 5,128 were assigned to intensive therapy and 5,123 to 
standard therapy (Figure 1). Baseline characteristics were similar 
between groups (Table 1). Median follow-up was 3.5 years (interquartile 
range, 2.8 to 4.2), with vital status available for 99.2% of patients.

The primary outcome occurred in 352 patients (6.9%) in the intensive-
therapy group and 371 patients (7.2%) in the standard-therapy group 
(hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; 
P=0.16). The absolute difference was 0.3 percentage points (95% CI, 
-0.7 to 1.4). Results were consistent across pre-specified subgroups 
(Figure 3).

Discussion

Structure

Paragraph 1: Summary of Main Findings

Restate primary outcome result
State whether hypothesis was supported

Paragraphs 2-3: Interpretation and Context

How do findings compare with prior evidence?
What mechanisms might explain findings?
Clinical interpretation

Paragraph 4: Strengths

Study design features
Generalizability
Completeness of follow-up

Paragraph 5: Limitations

Be specific and thoughtful
Discuss how limitations might affect interpretation
Avoid generic statements

Final Paragraph: Conclusions and Implications

Clinical implications
Policy implications
Future research needs

Example Limitations Paragraph

Our study has several limitations. First, despite randomization, we 
cannot exclude residual confounding from unmeasured factors. Second, 
the open-label design may have introduced bias in outcome assessment 
for subjective endpoints, though the primary outcome of death was 
objective. Third, our findings may not generalize to patients without 
established cardiovascular disease or to healthcare settings with 
different resources. Fourth, the 3.5-year follow-up may have been 
insufficient to detect cardiovascular benefits that emerge over 
longer periods.

Journal-Specific Requirements

NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine)

Word limit: 2,700 words (excluding abstract, references)
Abstract: 250 words, structured
References: ~40-50 typical
Figures/Tables: 4-5 combined
Style: Definitive, authoritative
Emphasis: Major clinical trials, transformative research

Lancet

Word limit: 3,500 words for research articles
Abstract: 300 words, structured
Summary box (Panel): Key messages highlighted
Research in Context: Required section explaining contribution
Style: Global health perspective valued

JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association)

Word limit: 3,000 words for original investigations
Abstract: 350 words, structured
Key Points box: Required summary
Visual abstract: Encouraged
Style: Policy-relevant, public health focus

BMJ (British Medical Journal)

Word limit: 3,000 words for research
Abstract: 300 words, structured
What this paper adds: Required box
Strengths and limitations box: Explicit section
Style: Practical, evidence-based

Annals of Internal Medicine

Word limit: 3,000 words
Abstract: 325 words, structured
Style: Focused on internal medicine practice
Clinical Trials and Meta-analyses: Specialty

Reporting Guidelines Compliance

CONSORT (RCTs)

25-item checklist including:

Trial design, randomization, blinding
Participant flow (diagram required)
All outcomes with effect sizes and CIs
Harms and adverse events

STROBE (Observational)

22-item checklist for:

Cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies
Setting, participants, variables, data sources
Bias assessment, sensitivity analyses

PRISMA (Systematic Reviews)

27-item checklist including:

Search strategy
Study selection process (diagram)
Risk of bias assessment
Synthesis methods

STARD (Diagnostic Studies)

30 items for diagnostic accuracy studies

Tables and Figures

Table 1: Baseline Characteristics

Standard format:

                              Intensive Therapy  Standard Therapy
                                  (N=5128)          (N=5123)
Age — yr                        63.4 ± 8.7        63.6 ± 8.5
Male sex — no. (%)              3389 (66.1)       3401 (66.4)
Body-mass index                 32.1 ± 5.4        32.0 ± 5.3
HbA1c — %                        8.3 ± 1.1         8.3 ± 1.0
Duration of diabetes — yr       10.2 ± 7.8        10.1 ± 7.6
Prior MI — no. (%)              2435 (47.5)       2411 (47.1)

CONSORT Flow Diagram

Required for RCTs:

Assessed for eligibility (n=12,537)
    │
    ├─► Excluded (n=2,286)
    │     ├─ Not meeting criteria (n=1,854)
    │     ├─ Declined to participate (n=389)
    │     └─ Other reasons (n=43)
    │
Randomized (n=10,251)
    │
    ├─► Intensive therapy (n=5,128)
    │     ├─ Lost to follow-up (n=52)
    │     └─ Analyzed (n=5,076)
    │
    └─► Standard therapy (n=5,123)
          ├─ Lost to follow-up (n=48)
          └─ Analyzed (n=5,075)

Kaplan-Meier Curves

Standard presentation:

Survival curves with shaded confidence bands
Number at risk table below
Hazard ratio with 95% CI
Log-rank P-value

Common Mistakes in Medical Writing

Overclaiming causation: Using “caused” for observational data
Relative risk only: Not reporting absolute measures
Missing CIs: Reporting point estimates without uncertainty
Vague limitations: “Our study has limitations” without specifics
Ignoring negative results: Selective reporting of outcomes
Clinical significance confusion: Statistically significant ≠ clinically meaningful
Subgroup fishing: Post-hoc subgroup analyses presented as confirmatory
Missing CONSORT/STROBE items: Incomplete reporting

Pre-Submission Checklist

Required Elements

Structured abstract (journal-specific format)
Trial registration number (for RCTs)
Ethics committee approval statement
Conflict of interest disclosures
CONSORT/STROBE checklist completed

Statistical Reporting

Primary outcome reported with CI and P-value
Absolute and relative measures included
All pre-specified outcomes reported
NNT calculated for significant clinical outcomes

Evidence Language

Claims match study design
Appropriate hedging used
Causal language only for RCTs

Clinical Relevance

Clinical implications stated
Patient-centered outcomes emphasized
Generalizability discussed

Reference: Ml_Conference_Style

ML Conference Writing Style Guide

Comprehensive writing guide for NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, CVPR, ECCV, ICCV, and other major machine learning and computer vision conferences.

Last Updated: 2024

Overview

ML conferences prioritize novelty, rigorous empirical evaluation, and reproducibility. Papers are evaluated on clear contribution, strong baselines, comprehensive ablations, and honest discussion of limitations.

Key Philosophy

“Show don’t tell—your experiments should demonstrate your claims, not just your prose.”

Primary Goal: Advance the state of the art with novel methods validated through rigorous experimentation.

Audience and Tone

Target Reader

ML researchers and practitioners
Experts in the specific subfield
Familiar with recent literature
Expect technical depth and precision

Tone Characteristics

Characteristic	Description
Technical	Dense with methodology details
Precise	Exact terminology, no ambiguity
Empirical	Claims backed by experiments
Direct	State contributions clearly
Honest	Acknowledge limitations

Voice

First person plural (“we”): “We propose…” “Our method…”
Active voice: “We introduce a novel architecture…”
Confident but measured: Strong claims require strong evidence

Abstract

Style Requirements

Dense and numbers-focused
150-250 words (varies by venue)
Key results upfront: Include specific metrics
Flowing paragraph (not structured)

Abstract Structure

Problem (1 sentence): What problem are you solving?
Limitation of existing work (1 sentence): Why current methods fall short
Your approach (1-2 sentences): What’s your method?
Key results (2-3 sentences): Specific numbers on benchmarks
Significance (optional, 1 sentence): Why this matters

Example Abstract (NeurIPS Style)

Transformers have achieved remarkable success in sequence modeling but 
suffer from quadratic computational complexity, limiting their application 
to long sequences. We introduce FlashAttention-2, an IO-aware exact 
attention algorithm that achieves 2x speedup over FlashAttention and up 
to 9x speedup over standard attention on sequences up to 16K tokens. Our 
key insight is to reduce memory reads/writes by tiling and recomputation, 
achieving optimal IO complexity. On the Long Range Arena benchmark, 
FlashAttention-2 enables training with 8x longer sequences while matching 
standard attention accuracy. Combined with sequence parallelism, we train 
GPT-style models on sequences of 64K tokens at near-linear cost. We 
release optimized CUDA kernels achieving 80% of theoretical peak FLOPS 
on A100 GPUs. Code is available at [anonymous URL].

Abstract Don’ts

❌ “We propose a novel method for X” (vague, no results) ❌ “Our method outperforms baselines” (no specific numbers) ❌ “This is an important problem” (self-evident claims)

✅ Include specific metrics: “achieves 94.5% accuracy, 3.2% improvement” ✅ Include scale: “on 1M samples” or “16K token sequences” ✅ Include comparison: “2x faster than previous SOTA”

Introduction

Structure (2-3 pages)

ML introductions have a distinctive structure with numbered contributions.

Paragraph-by-Paragraph Guide

Paragraph 1: Problem Motivation

Why is this problem important?
What are the applications?
Set up the technical challenge

"Large language models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in 
natural language understanding and generation. However, their quadratic 
attention complexity presents a fundamental bottleneck for processing 
long documents, multi-turn conversations, and reasoning over extended 
contexts. As models scale to billions of parameters and context lengths 
extend to tens of thousands of tokens, efficient attention mechanisms 
become critical for practical deployment."

Paragraph 2: Limitations of Existing Approaches

What methods exist?
Why are they insufficient?
Technical analysis of limitations

"Prior work has addressed this through sparse attention patterns, 
linear attention approximations, and low-rank factorizations. While 
these methods reduce theoretical complexity, they often sacrifice 
accuracy, require specialized hardware, or introduce approximation 
errors that compound in deep networks. Exact attention remains 
preferable when computational resources permit."

Paragraph 3: Your Approach (High-Level)

What’s your key insight?
How does your method work conceptually?
Why should it succeed?

"We observe that the primary bottleneck in attention is not computation 
but rather memory bandwidth—reading and writing the large N×N attention 
matrix dominates runtime on modern GPUs. We propose FlashAttention-2, 
which eliminates this bottleneck through a novel tiling strategy that 
computes attention block-by-block without materializing the full matrix."

Paragraph 4: Contribution List (CRITICAL)

This is mandatory and distinctive for ML conferences:

Our contributions are as follows:

• We propose FlashAttention-2, an IO-aware exact attention algorithm 
  that achieves optimal memory complexity O(N²d/M) where M is GPU 
  SRAM size.

• We provide theoretical analysis showing that our algorithm achieves 
  2-4x fewer HBM accesses than FlashAttention on typical GPU 
  configurations.

• We demonstrate 2x speedup over FlashAttention and up to 9x over 
  standard PyTorch attention across sequence lengths from 256 to 64K 
  tokens.

• We show that FlashAttention-2 enables training with 8x longer 
  contexts on the same hardware, unlocking new capabilities for 
  long-range modeling.

• We release optimized CUDA kernels and PyTorch bindings at 
  [anonymous URL].

Contribution Bullet Guidelines

Good Contribution Bullets	Bad Contribution Bullets
Specific, quantifiable	Vague claims
Self-contained	Requires reading paper to understand
Distinct from each other	Overlapping bullets
Emphasize novelty	State obvious facts

In introduction: Brief positioning (1-2 paragraphs)
Separate section: Detailed comparison (at end or before conclusion)
Appendix: Extended discussion if space-limited

Method

Structure (2-3 pages)

METHOD
├── Problem Formulation
├── Method Overview / Architecture
├── Key Technical Components
│   ├── Component 1 (with equations)
│   ├── Component 2 (with equations)
│   └── Component 3 (with equations)
├── Theoretical Analysis (if applicable)
└── Implementation Details

Mathematical Notation

Define all notation: “Let X ∈ ℝ^{N×d} denote the input sequence…”
Consistent symbols: Same symbol means same thing throughout
Number important equations: Reference by number later

Algorithm Pseudocode

Include clear pseudocode for reproducibility:

Algorithm 1: FlashAttention-2 Forward Pass
─────────────────────────────────────────
Input: Q, K, V ∈ ℝ^{N×d}, block size B_r, B_c
Output: O ∈ ℝ^{N×d}

1:  Divide Q into T_r = ⌈N/B_r⌉ blocks
2:  Divide K, V into T_c = ⌈N/B_c⌉ blocks
3:  Initialize O = 0, ℓ = 0, m = -∞
4:  for i = 1 to T_r do
5:    Load Q_i from HBM to SRAM
6:    for j = 1 to T_c do
7:      Load K_j, V_j from HBM to SRAM
8:      Compute S_ij = Q_i K_j^T
9:      Update running max and sum
10:     Update O_i incrementally
11:   end for
12:   Write O_i to HBM
13: end for
14: return O

Architecture Diagrams

Clear, publication-quality figures
Label all components
Show data flow with arrows
Use consistent visual language

Experiments

Structure (2-3 pages)

EXPERIMENTS
├── Experimental Setup
│   ├── Datasets and Benchmarks
│   ├── Baselines
│   ├── Implementation Details
│   └── Evaluation Metrics
├── Main Results
│   └── Table/Figure with primary comparisons
├── Ablation Studies
│   └── Component-wise analysis
├── Analysis
│   ├── Scaling behavior
│   ├── Qualitative examples
│   └── Error analysis
└── Computational Efficiency

Datasets and Benchmarks

Use standard benchmarks: Establish comparability
Report dataset statistics: Size, splits, preprocessing
Justify non-standard choices: If using custom data, explain why

Baselines

Critical for acceptance. Include:

Recent SOTA: Not just old methods
Fair comparisons: Same compute budget, hyperparameter tuning
Ablated versions: Your method without key components
Strong baselines: Don’t cherry-pick weak competitors

Main Results Table

Clear, comprehensive formatting:

Table 1: Results on Long Range Arena Benchmark (accuracy %)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Method          | ListOps | Text  | Retrieval | Image | Path  | Avg
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Transformer     |  36.4   | 64.3  |   57.5    | 42.4  | 71.4  | 54.4
Performer       |  18.0   | 65.4  |   53.8    | 42.8  | 77.1  | 51.4
Linear Attn     |  16.1   | 65.9  |   53.1    | 42.3  | 75.3  | 50.5
FlashAttention  |  37.1   | 64.5  |   57.8    | 42.7  | 71.2  | 54.7
FlashAttn-2     |  37.4   | 64.7  |   58.2    | 42.9  | 71.8  | 55.0
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Ablation Studies (MANDATORY)

Show what matters in your method:

Table 2: Ablation Study on FlashAttention-2 Components
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Variant                              | Speedup | Memory
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Full FlashAttention-2                |   2.0x  |  1.0x
  - without sequence parallelism     |   1.7x  |  1.0x
  - without recomputation            |   1.3x  |  2.4x
  - without block tiling             |   1.0x  |  4.0x
FlashAttention-1 (baseline)          |   1.0x  |  1.0x
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────

What Ablations Should Show

Each component matters: Removing it hurts performance
Design choices justified: Why this architecture/hyperparameter?
Failure modes: When does method not work?
Sensitivity analysis: Robustness to hyperparameters

Placement Options

After Introduction: Common in CV papers
Before Conclusion: Common in NeurIPS/ICML
Appendix: When space is tight

Writing Style

Organized by theme: Not chronological
Position your work: How you differ from each line of work
Fair characterization: Don’t misrepresent prior work
Recent citations: Include 2023-2024 papers

Example Structure

**Efficient Attention Mechanisms.** Prior work on efficient attention 
falls into three categories: sparse patterns (Beltagy et al., 2020; 
Zaheer et al., 2020), linear approximations (Katharopoulos et al., 2020; 
Choromanski et al., 2021), and low-rank factorizations (Wang et al., 
2020). Our work differs in that we focus on IO-efficient exact 
attention rather than approximations.

**Memory-Efficient Training.** Gradient checkpointing (Chen et al., 2016) 
and activation recomputation (Korthikanti et al., 2022) reduce memory 
by trading compute. We adopt similar ideas but apply them within the 
attention operator itself.

Limitations Section

Why It Matters

Increasingly required at NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR. Honest limitations:

Show scientific maturity
Guide future work
Prevent overselling

What to Include

Method limitations: When does it fail?
Experimental limitations: What wasn’t tested?
Scope limitations: What’s out of scope?
Computational limitations: Resource requirements

Example Limitations Section

**Limitations.** While FlashAttention-2 provides substantial speedups, 
several limitations remain. First, our implementation is optimized for 
NVIDIA GPUs and does not support AMD or other hardware. Second, the 
speedup is most pronounced for medium to long sequences; for very short 
sequences (<256 tokens), the overhead of our kernel launch dominates. 
Third, we focus on dense attention; extending our approach to sparse 
attention patterns remains future work. Finally, our theoretical 
analysis assumes specific GPU memory hierarchy parameters that may not 
hold for future hardware generations.

Reproducibility

Reproducibility Checklist (NeurIPS/ICML)

Most ML conferences require a reproducibility checklist covering:

What to Report

Hyperparameters:

"We train with Adam (β₁=0.9, β₂=0.999, ε=1e-8) and learning rate 3e-4 
with linear warmup over 1000 steps and cosine decay. Batch size is 256 
across 8 A100 GPUs. We train for 100K steps (approximately 24 hours)."

Random Seeds:

"All experiments are averaged over 3 random seeds (0, 1, 2) with 
standard deviation reported in parentheses."

Compute:

"Experiments were conducted on 8 NVIDIA A100-80GB GPUs. Total training 
time was approximately 500 GPU-hours."

Figures

Figure Quality

Vector graphics preferred: PDF, SVG
High resolution for rasters: 300+ dpi
Readable at publication size: Test at actual column width
Colorblind-accessible: Use patterns in addition to color

Common Figure Types

Architecture diagram: Show your method visually
Performance plots: Learning curves, scaling behavior
Comparison tables: Main results
Ablation figures: Component contributions
Qualitative examples: Input/output samples

Figure Captions

Self-contained captions that explain:

What is shown
How to read the figure
Key takeaway

References

Citation Style

Numbered [1] or author-year (Smith et al., 2023)
Check venue-specific requirements
Be consistent throughout

Reference Guidelines

Cite recent work: 2022-2024 papers expected
Don’t over-cite yourself: Raises bias concerns
Cite arxiv appropriately: Use published version when available
Include all relevant prior work: Missing citations hurt review

Venue-Specific Notes

NeurIPS

8 pages main + unlimited appendix/references
Broader Impact section sometimes required
Reproducibility checklist mandatory
OpenReview submission, public reviews

ICML

8 pages main + unlimited appendix/references
Strong emphasis on theory + experiments
Reproducibility statement encouraged

ICLR

8 pages main (camera-ready can exceed)
OpenReview with public reviews and discussion
Author response period is interactive
Strong emphasis on novelty and insight

CVPR/ICCV/ECCV

8 pages main including references
Supplementary video encouraged
Heavy emphasis on visual results
Benchmark performance critical

Common Mistakes

Weak baselines: Not comparing to recent SOTA
Missing ablations: Not showing component contributions
Overclaiming: “We solve X” when you partially address X
Vague contributions: “We propose a novel method”
Poor reproducibility: Missing hyperparameters, seeds
Wrong template: Using last year’s style file
Anonymous violations: Revealing identity in blind review
Missing limitations: Not acknowledging failure modes

Rebuttal Tips

ML conferences have author response periods. Tips:

Address key concerns first: Prioritize critical issues
Run requested experiments: When feasible in time
Be concise: Reviewers read many rebuttals
Stay professional: Even with unfair reviews
Reference specific lines: “As stated in L127…”

Pre-Submission Checklist

Content

Technical

Correct venue style file (current year)
Anonymized (no author names, no identifiable URLs)
Page limit respected
References complete
Supplementary organized

Reproducibility

Reference: Nature_Science_Style

Nature and Science Writing Style Guide

Comprehensive writing guide for Nature, Science, and related high-impact multidisciplinary journals (Nature Communications, Science Advances, PNAS).

Last Updated: 2024

Overview

Nature and Science are the world’s premier multidisciplinary scientific journals. Papers published here must appeal to scientists across all disciplines, not just specialists. This fundamentally shapes the writing style.

Key Philosophy

“If a structural biologist can’t understand why your particle physics paper matters, it won’t be published in Nature.”

Primary Goal: Communicate groundbreaking science to an educated but non-specialist audience.

Audience and Tone

Target Reader

PhD-level scientist in any field
Familiar with scientific methodology
Not an expert in your specific subfield
Reading broadly to stay current across science

Tone Characteristics

Characteristic	Description
Accessible	Avoid jargon; explain technical concepts
Engaging	Hook the reader; tell a story
Significant	Emphasize why this matters broadly
Confident	State findings clearly (with appropriate hedging)
Active	Use active voice; first person acceptable

Voice

First person plural (“we”) is encouraged: “We discovered that…” not “It was discovered that…”
Active voice preferred: “We measured…” not “Measurements were taken…”
Direct statements: “Protein X controls Y” not “Protein X appears to potentially control Y”

Abstract

Style Requirements

Flowing paragraphs (NOT structured with labeled sections)
150-200 words for Nature; up to 250 for Nature Communications
No citations in abstract
No abbreviations (or define at first use if essential)
Self-contained: Understandable without reading the paper

Abstract Structure (Implicit)

Write as flowing prose covering:

Context (1-2 sentences): Why this area matters
Gap/Problem (1 sentence): What was unknown or problematic
Approach (1 sentence): What you did (briefly)
Key findings (2-3 sentences): Main results with key numbers
Significance (1-2 sentences): Why this matters, implications

Example Abstract (Nature Style)

The origins of multicellular life remain one of biology's greatest mysteries. 
How individual cells first cooperated to form complex organisms has been 
difficult to study because the transition occurred over 600 million years ago. 
Here we show that the unicellular alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii can evolve 
simple multicellular structures within 750 generations when exposed to 
predation pressure. Using experimental evolution with the predator Paramecium, 
we observed the emergence of stable multicellular clusters in 5 of 10 
replicate populations. Genomic analysis revealed that mutations in just two 
genes—encoding cell adhesion proteins—were sufficient to trigger this 
transition. These results demonstrate that the evolution of multicellularity 
may require fewer genetic changes than previously thought, providing insight 
into one of life's major transitions.

What NOT to Write

❌ Too technical:

“Using CRISPR-Cas9-mediated knockout of the CAD1 gene (encoding cadherin-1) in C. reinhardtii strain CC-125, we demonstrated that loss of CAD1 function combined with overexpression of FLA10 under control of the HSP70A/RBCS2 tandem promoter…”

❌ Too vague:

“We studied how cells can form groups. Our results are interesting and may have implications for understanding evolution.”

Introduction

Length and Structure

3-5 paragraphs (roughly 500-800 words)
Funnel structure: Broad → Specific → Your contribution

Paragraph-by-Paragraph Guide

Paragraph 1: The Big Picture

Open with a broad, engaging statement about the field
Establish why this area matters to science/society
Accessible to any scientist

Example:
"The ability to predict protein structure from sequence alone has been a grand 
challenge of biology for over 50 years. Accurate predictions would transform 
drug discovery, enable understanding of disease mechanisms, and illuminate the 
fundamental rules governing molecular self-assembly."

Paragraph 2-3: What We Know

Review key prior work (selectively, not exhaustively)
Build toward the gap you’ll address
Keep citations focused on essential papers

Example:
"Significant progress has been made through template-based methods that 
leverage known structures of homologous proteins. However, for the estimated 
30% of proteins without detectable homologs, prediction accuracy has remained 
limited. Deep learning approaches have shown promise, achieving improved 
accuracy on benchmark datasets, yet still fall short of experimental accuracy 
for many protein families."

Paragraph 4: The Gap

Clearly state what remains unknown or unresolved
Frame this as an important problem

Example:
"Despite these advances, the fundamental question remains: can we predict 
protein structure with experimental-level accuracy for proteins across all 
of sequence space? This capability would democratize structural biology and 
enable rapid characterization of newly discovered proteins."

Final Paragraph: This Paper

State what you did and preview key findings
Signal the significance of your contribution

Example:
"Here we present AlphaFold2, a neural network architecture that predicts 
protein structure with atomic-level accuracy. In the CASP14 blind assessment, 
AlphaFold2 achieved a median GDT score of 92.4, matching experimental 
accuracy for most targets. We show that this system can be applied to predict 
structures across entire proteomes, opening new avenues for understanding 
protein function at scale."

Introduction Don’ts

❌ Don’t start with “Since ancient times…” or overly grandiose claims
❌ Don’t provide an exhaustive literature review (save for specialist journals)
❌ Don’t include methods or results in the introduction
❌ Don’t use unexplained acronyms or jargon

Results

Organizational Philosophy

Story-driven, not experiment-driven

Organize by finding, not by the chronological order of experiments:

❌ Experiment-driven (avoid):

“We first performed experiment A. Next, we did experiment B. Then we conducted experiment C.”

✅ Finding-driven (preferred):

“We discovered that X. To understand the mechanism, we found that Y. This led us to test whether Z, confirming our hypothesis.”

Results Writing Style

Past tense for describing what was done/found
Present tense for referring to figures (“Figure 2 shows…”)
Objective but interpretive: State findings with minimal interpretation, but provide enough context for non-specialists
Quantitative: Include key numbers, statistics, effect sizes

Example Results Paragraph

To test whether protein X is required for cell division, we generated 
knockout cell lines using CRISPR-Cas9 (Fig. 1a). Cells lacking protein X 
showed a 73% reduction in division rate compared to controls (P < 0.001, 
n = 6 biological replicates; Fig. 1b). Live-cell imaging revealed that 
knockout cells arrested in metaphase, with 84% showing abnormal spindle 
morphology (Fig. 1c,d). These results demonstrate that protein X is 
essential for proper spindle assembly and cell division.

Subheadings

Use descriptive subheadings that convey findings:

❌ Vague: “Protein expression analysis” ✅ Informative: “Protein X is upregulated in response to stress”

Discussion

Structure (4-6 paragraphs)

Paragraph 1: Summary of Key Findings

Restate main findings (don’t repeat Results verbatim)
State whether hypotheses were supported

Paragraphs 2-3: Interpretation and Context

What do the findings mean?
How do they relate to prior work?
What mechanisms might explain the results?

Paragraph 4: Broader Implications

Why does this matter beyond your specific system?
Connections to other fields
Potential applications

Paragraph 5: Limitations

Acknowledge limitations honestly
Be specific, not generic

Final Paragraph: Conclusions and Future

Big-picture take-home message
Brief mention of future directions

Discussion Writing Tips

Lead with implications, not caveats
Compare to literature constructively: “Our findings extend the work of Smith et al. by demonstrating…”
Acknowledge alternative interpretations: “An alternative explanation is that…”
Be honest about limitations: Specific > generic

Example Limitation Statement

❌ Generic: “Our study has limitations that should be addressed in future work.”

✅ Specific: “Our analysis was limited to cultured cells, which may not fully recapitulate the tissue microenvironment. Additionally, the 48-hour observation window may miss slower-developing phenotypes.”

Methods

Nature Methods Placement

Brief Methods in main text (often at the end)
Extended Methods in Supplementary Information
Must be detailed enough for reproduction

Writing Style

Past tense, passive voice acceptable: “Cells were cultured…” or “We cultured cells…”
Precise and reproducible: Include concentrations, times, temperatures
Reference established protocols: “Following the method of Smith et al.³…”

Figures

Figure Philosophy

Nature values conceptual figures alongside data:

Figure 1: Often a schematic/model showing the concept
Data figures: Clear, not cluttered
Final figure: Often a summary model

Figure Design Principles

Single-column (89 mm) or double-column (183 mm) width
High resolution: 300+ dpi for photos, 1000+ dpi for line art
Colorblind-accessible: Avoid red-green distinctions alone
Minimal chartjunk: No 3D effects, unnecessary gridlines
Complete legends: Self-explanatory without reading text

Figure Legend Format

Figure 1 | Protein X controls cell division through spindle assembly.
a, Schematic of the experimental approach. b, Quantification of cell 
division rate in control (grey) and knockout (blue) cells. Data are 
mean ± s.e.m., n = 6 biological replicates. ***P < 0.001, two-tailed 
t-test. c,d, Representative images of spindle morphology in control (c) 
and knockout (d) cells. Scale bars, 10 μm.

References

Citation Style

Numbered superscripts: ¹, ², ¹⁻³, ¹’⁵’⁷
Nature format for bibliography

Reference Format

1. Watson, J. D. & Crick, F. H. C. Molecular structure of nucleic acids. 
   Nature 171, 737–738 (1953).

2. Smith, A. B., Jones, C. D. & Williams, E. F. Discovery of protein X. 
   Science 380, 123–130 (2023).

Citation Best Practices

Recent literature: Include papers from last 2-3 years
Seminal papers: Cite foundational work
Diverse sources: Don’t over-cite your own work
Primary sources: Cite original discoveries, not reviews (when possible)

Language and Style Tips

Word Choice

Avoid	Prefer
utilize	use
methodology	method
in order to	to
a large number of	many
at this point in time	now
has the ability to	can
it is interesting to note that	[delete entirely]

Sentence Structure

Vary sentence length: Mix short and longer sentences
Lead with importance: Put key information at the start
One idea per sentence: Complex ideas need multiple sentences

Paragraph Structure

Topic sentence first: State the main point
Supporting evidence: Data and citations
Transition: Connect to next paragraph

Comparison: Nature vs. Science

Feature	Nature	Science
Abstract length	150-200 words	≤125 words
Citation style	Numbered superscript	Numbered parentheses (1, 2)
Article titles in refs	Yes	No (in main refs)
Methods placement	End of paper or supplement	Supplement
Significance statement	No	No
Open access option	Yes	Yes

Common Rejection Reasons

Not of sufficient broad interest: Too specialized for Nature/Science
Incremental advance: Not transformative enough
Overselling: Claims not supported by data
Poor accessibility: Too technical for general audience
Weak significance statement: “So what?” unclear
Insufficient novelty: Similar findings published elsewhere
Methodological concerns: Results not convincing

Pre-Submission Checklist

Content

Significance to broad audience clear in first paragraph
Non-specialist can understand the abstract
Story-driven results (not experiment-by-experiment)
Implications emphasized in discussion
Limitations acknowledged specifically

Style

Active voice predominates
Jargon minimized or explained
Sentences vary in length
Paragraphs have clear topic sentences

Technical

Reference: Posters_Guidelines

Research Poster Guidelines

Comprehensive guidelines for creating effective academic research posters including sizing, layout, typography, and design best practices.

Last Updated: 2024

Standard Poster Sizes

International Sizes (ISO 216)

Size	Dimensions (mm)	Dimensions (inches)	Common Use
A0	841 × 1189	33.1 × 46.8	Most common international standard
A1	594 × 841	23.4 × 33.1	Smaller conferences, travel-friendly
A2	420 × 594	16.5 × 23.4	Mini posters, small venues

US Sizes

Size	Dimensions (inches)	Dimensions (mm)	Common Use
36” × 48”	36 × 48	914 × 1219	Common US conference size (portrait)
42” × 56”	42 × 56	1067 × 1422	Large format US posters
48” × 36”	48 × 36	1219 × 914	Landscape orientation
48” × 96”	48 × 96	1219 × 2438	Extra-wide format

Other Common Sizes

Size	Dimensions	Notes
90 cm × 120 cm	900 × 1200 mm / 35.4 × 47.2 in	Common in Europe
40” × 30”	1016 × 762 mm	Landscape format
3 ft × 4 ft	914 × 1219 mm / 36 × 48 in	Same as 36×48

Orientation

Portrait: Most common (height > width)
- Better for long visual flows (top to bottom)
- Examples: A0, 36”×48”
Landscape: Less common but sometimes preferred
- Better for wide content, timelines
- Examples: 48”×36”, 40”×30”

Always verify: Check conference specifications before designing!

Typography and Font Sizes

Recommended Font Sizes by Distance

Posters are viewed from 3-6 feet (1-2 meters) away:

Element	Size Range	Recommended
Title	60-85 pt	72-85 pt
Author Names	48-60 pt	54 pt
Affiliations	32-40 pt	36 pt
Section Headers	36-48 pt	42 pt
Body Text	24-32 pt	28 pt
Figure Captions	20-24 pt	22 pt
References	18-22 pt	20 pt

Font Families

Sans-Serif (Recommended for Posters):

Arial
Helvetica
Calibri
Futura
Gill Sans
Why: Clean, readable at distance

Serif (Use Sparingly):

Times New Roman
Georgia
Palatino
When: Body text if preferred, but sans-serif better for headers

Monospace:

Courier New
Consolas
When: Code snippets only

Typography Best Practices

Limit fonts: Use 1-2 font families maximum
Hierarchy: Establish clear size hierarchy
Weight: Use bold for emphasis, not italics
Alignment: Left-align body text, center title
Spacing: Generous line spacing (1.2-1.5)
Consistency: Same fonts for similar elements

Layout and Design Principles

Grid-Based Layouts

Column Structures:

Layout	Columns	Best For
Single Column	1	Simple, linear flow; timeline posters
Two Column	2	Most common; balanced layout
Three Column	3	Dense content; multi-part studies
Four Column	4	Very dense; avoid if possible

Recommended: 2 or 3 columns for most research posters

Visual Flow

Reading Order (Western conventions):

Top to bottom
Left to right
Z-pattern or F-pattern

Section Ordering (typical):

+----------------------------------+
|            TITLE                 |
|     Authors, Affiliations        |
+----------------------------------+
| Introduction | Results           |
|              |                   |
| Methods      | Discussion        |
|              |                   |
| [Optional]   | Conclusions       |
+----------------------------------+
|         References / QR Code     |
+----------------------------------+

Spacing and Margins

Outer margins: 1-2 inches (2.5-5 cm) all sides
Column spacing: 0.5-1 inch (1.3-2.5 cm)
Inter-section spacing: 0.5-1 inch
White space: 30-40% of poster should be white space

Avoid: Dense, text-heavy layouts with minimal white space

Color Schemes

Colorblind-Safe Palettes

Use colorblind-friendly color combinations:

Okabe-Ito Palette (Recommended):

Orange: #E69F00
Sky Blue: #56B4E9
Bluish Green: #009E73
Yellow: #F0E442
Blue: #0072B2
Vermillion: #D55E00
Reddish Purple: #CC79A7
Black: #000000
Gray: #999999

Viridis Palette (sequential):

Good for heatmaps and gradients
Colorblind-safe and perceptually uniform

Color Usage Guidelines

Background:

White or light gray: Most common, professional
Light colored: Pale blue, beige (use cautiously)
Avoid dark backgrounds: Harder to read, expensive to print

Text:

Dark on light: Black or dark gray text on white/light backgrounds
Contrast ratio: At least 4.5:1 (WCAG AA standard)

Accent Colors:

Use 2-3 accent colors maximum
Section headers, key findings
Consistent throughout poster

Figures:

Colorblind-safe palettes
Sufficient contrast
Test in grayscale

Color Contrast Tools

WebAIM Contrast Checker: https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/
Coblis (Color Blindness Simulator): https://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/

Content Structure

Essential Sections

1. Title Section

Title: Clear, specific, engaging
Authors: Names (underline presenting author)
Affiliations: Institutions, departments
Logo: Institutional logo (corner)
Contact: Email, QR code to paper/website

2. Introduction/Background

Purpose: Context and motivation
Length: 100-200 words
Include:
- Problem statement
- Research gap
- Objectives/hypothesis

3. Methods

Purpose: How you did the study
Format:
- Bullet points preferred
- Flow diagram if complex
- Key parameters
Include: Sample size, procedures, analysis

4. Results

Purpose: What you found
Format: Primarily visual (figures, tables, charts)
Include:
- Key findings (2-4 main results)
- Statistical significance
- Visual evidence

5. Discussion/Conclusions

Purpose: What it means
Length: 100-200 words
Include:
- Interpretation
- Implications
- Limitations
- Future work

6. References

Format: Small font, abbreviated citations
Include: Key citations only (5-10)
Style: Any consistent style

Optional Sections

Abstract: Sometimes included, often omitted
Acknowledgments: Funding, collaborators
Future Work: Next steps

Visual Elements

Figures and Plots

Principles:

Simplify: Remove clutter, emphasize key points
Enlarge: Make larger than in paper
Label clearly: Large axis labels, legends
Standalone: Each figure tells a complete story
High resolution: 300 dpi minimum

Figure Types:

Photographs: High quality, cropped appropriately
Graphs: Bar charts, line plots, scatter plots
Heatmaps: Use colorblind-safe colormaps
Schematics: Diagrams, flowcharts
Tables: Simple tables (complex tables → figure)

Tables

When to Use:

Precise numerical values needed
Comparisons across conditions
Summary statistics

Best Practices:

Keep simple: 3-5 columns, 5-10 rows maximum
Large fonts: Same size as body text
Clear headers: Bold column/row headers
Alternating rows: Light shading for readability
Minimal lines: Horizontal lines only (no vertical)

Icons and Graphics

Use:

Icons for visual interest (methods, concepts)
Simple graphics to break text
Arrows to guide flow

Sources:

Noun Project: https://thenounproject.com/
BioRender: https://biorender.com/ (scientific illustrations)
Font Awesome: https://fontawesome.com/ (icons)

Caution: Don’t overuse; maintain professionalism

LaTeX Poster Packages

beamerposter

Description: Extension of Beamer for posters
Best For: Academic conferences, classic layout
Pros:

Familiar to Beamer users
Clean, professional appearance
Many themes available

Cons:

Less flexible than tikzposter
Can be verbose

Template: assets/posters/beamerposter_academic.tex

Example Usage:

\documentclass[final]{beamer}
\usepackage[size=a0,scale=1.24]{beamerposter}
\usetheme{Berlin}

tikzposter

Description: Modern poster package using TikZ
Best For: Colorful, modern designs
Pros:

Highly customizable
Modern, attractive themes
Block-based layout

Cons:

Steeper learning curve
Can be slow to compile

Template: assets/posters/tikzposter_research.tex

Example Usage:

\documentclass[25pt, a0paper, portrait]{tikzposter}
\usetheme{Autumn}
\usecolorstyle{Denmark}

baposter

Description: Box-and-poster system
Best For: Structured, multi-column layouts
Pros:

Excellent column control
Header boxes, structured layout
Good for dense content

Cons:

Complex syntax
Less commonly used

Template: assets/posters/baposter_conference.tex

Example Usage:

\documentclass[a0paper,portrait]{baposter}

Printing and File Preparation

File Format

For Printing:

PDF: Universal standard
High resolution: 300 dpi minimum, 600 dpi for photos
Color space: RGB for most printers (check with printer)
Embed fonts: Ensure all fonts embedded
Flatten: No transparency issues

Print Quality Checks

Before printing:

Proofread: Check for typos, errors
Colors: Check in print preview
Resolution: Zoom to 100%, check figure quality
Margins: Verify nothing cut off
Test print: Print small version (A4) to check layout

Print Providers

Options:

University print shop: Often cheapest, convenient
FedEx Office: Widely available
Online services:
- Vistaprint
- Printful
- Academic Poster Printing (specialized)

Cost: Typically $50-150 for A0 glossy poster

Paper Types

Paper Type	Description	Best For
Matte	Non-reflective finish	Well-lit venues, minimal glare
Glossy	Shiny, vibrant colors	Photos, colorful figures
Satin/Semi-gloss	Between matte and glossy	Balanced option (recommended)
Fabric	Wrinkle-resistant, rollable	Travel, re-use

Recommendation: Satin or matte for most academic posters

QR Codes

What to Include

Generate QR codes linking to:

Paper PDF: Published or preprint
Supplementary materials: Data, code, videos
Personal website: Lab or researcher page
Video abstract: 1-2 minute video summary
Online version: Interactive poster

Placement

Common locations:
- Bottom right corner
- Next to references
- Near contact information
Size: 3-4 inches (7-10 cm) square
Label: “Scan for paper” or “More info”

QR Code Generators

QR Code Generator: https://www.qr-code-generator.com/
QRStuff: https://www.qrstuff.com/
LaTeX package: qrcode for generating in LaTeX

Design Best Practices

Do’s

✓ Use large fonts (28pt+ for body text)
✓ Keep text minimal (30-40% of poster)
✓ Use visuals (60-70% figures, plots, images)
✓ Tell a story (clear narrative flow)
✓ Colorblind-safe colors
✓ Test readability (view from 6 feet away)
✓ Include contact info (email, QR code)
✓ Proofread (multiple times!)

Don’ts

✗ Don’t use small fonts (<24pt body text)
✗ Don’t overcrowd (leave white space)
✗ Don’t use complex tables (simplify or visualize)
✗ Don’t use full paragraphs (use bullets)
✗ Don’t use many fonts (1-2 max)
✗ Don’t use low-res images (<300 dpi)
✗ Don’t use red-green contrasts (colorblind issue)
✗ Don’t make it a paper (posters ≠ papers)

Poster Presentation Tips

During the Poster Session

Stand by your poster: Be available, engaged
Elevator pitch ready: 1-2 minute summary prepared
Different depths: Short version (1 min), medium (3 min), deep dive (10 min)
Engage visitors: Ask questions, invite discussion
Business cards: Have them ready
Notebook: Record feedback, questions
Handouts: Optional 1-page summary (with QR code)

Talking Through Your Poster

30-second version:

What is the problem?
What did you do?
What did you find?

2-minute version:

Background + motivation
Methods (briefly)
Key result (show main figure)
Conclusion + implications

5+ minute version:

Full walkthrough
Address specific questions
Discuss limitations, future work

Accessibility Considerations

Visual Accessibility

Color contrast: High contrast (4.5:1 minimum)
Colorblind-safe: Use Okabe-Ito or similar palettes
Font size: Large enough to read from distance
Font choice: Clear, sans-serif fonts
Alt text: Consider providing text description

Physical Accessibility

Mounting height: Low enough for wheelchair users to read bottom
QR codes: Provide alternative (short URL, handout)

Checklist Before Printing

Example Poster Layouts

Layout 1: Two-Column (Recommended for Most)

+----------------------------------------+
|              TITLE                     |
|      Authors & Affiliations            |
+----------------------------------------+
|  INTRO    |  RESULTS                   |
|           |                            |
|  METHODS  |  RESULTS (cont.)           |
|           |                            |
|           |  DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS    |
+----------------------------------------+
|        REFERENCES    |    QR CODE      |
+----------------------------------------+

Layout 2: Three-Column

+---------------------------------------+
|              TITLE                    |
|      Authors & Affiliations           |
+---------------------------------------+
| INTRO  | RESULTS | DISCUSSION         |
|        |         |                    |
| METHOD | RESULTS | CONCLUSIONS        |
|        |         |                    |
|        | RESULTS | FUTURE WORK        |
+---------------------------------------+
|    REFERENCES       |   QR CODE       |
+---------------------------------------+

Layout 3: Horizontal Flow

+----------------------------------------+
|              TITLE                     |
|      Authors & Affiliations            |
+----------------------------------------+
|  INTRODUCTION    |    METHODS          |
+----------------------------------------+
|           RESULTS                      |
|    (large figure spanning width)       |
+----------------------------------------+
|  DISCUSSION      |   CONCLUSIONS       |
+----------------------------------------+
|        REFERENCES    |    QR CODE      |
+----------------------------------------+

Resources

LaTeX Templates

assets/posters/beamerposter_academic.tex
assets/posters/tikzposter_research.tex
assets/posters/baposter_conference.tex

Online Resources

Better Posters Blog: https://betterposters.blogspot.com/
Colorblind Safe Palettes: https://colorbrewer2.org/
BioRender (scientific illustrations): https://biorender.com/
Poster Design Guide (Colin Purrington): https://colinpurrington.com/tips/poster-design/

Tools

Inkscape: Free vector graphics editor
PowerPoint: Surprisingly popular for posters
Illustrator: Professional design tool
LaTeX: Best for reproducibility, version control

Summary

Key Takeaways:

Size: Verify conference requirements (typically A0 or 36”×48”)
Fonts: Large (28pt+ body, 72pt+ title)
Layout: 2-3 columns, generous white space
Visuals: 60-70% visual content
Colors: Colorblind-safe, high contrast
Content: Tell a story, keep text minimal
Quality: 300+ dpi, test print
Accessibility: Readable from distance, clear hierarchy

Remember: A poster is not a paper - it’s a visual summary designed to spark conversations!

Reference: Reviewer_Expectations

Reviewer Expectations by Venue

Understanding what reviewers look for at different venues is essential for crafting successful submissions. This guide covers evaluation criteria, common rejection reasons, and how to address reviewer concerns.

Last Updated: 2024

Overview

Reviewers at different venues prioritize different aspects. Understanding these priorities helps you:

Frame your contribution appropriately
Anticipate likely criticisms
Prepare effective rebuttals
Decide where to submit

High-Impact Journals (Nature, Science, Cell)

What Reviewers Look For

Priority	Weight	Description
Broad significance	Critical	Impact beyond the specific subfield
Novelty	Critical	First to show this or major advance
Technical rigor	High	Sound methodology, appropriate controls
Clarity	High	Accessible to non-specialists
Completeness	Moderate	Thorough but not exhaustive

Review Process

Editorial triage: Most papers rejected without review (Nature: ~92%)
Expert review: 2-4 reviewers if sent out
Cross-discipline reviewer: Often includes non-specialist
Quick turnaround: First decision typically 2-4 weeks

What Gets a Paper Rejected

At Editorial Stage:

Findings not significant enough for broad audience
Incremental advance over prior work
Too specialized for the journal
Topic doesn’t fit current editorial interests

At Review Stage:

Claims not supported by data
Missing critical controls
Alternative interpretations not addressed
Statistical concerns
Prior work not adequately acknowledged
Writing inaccessible to non-specialists

How to Address Nature/Science Reviewers

In the paper:

Lead with significance in the first paragraph
Explain why findings matter broadly
Include controls for all major claims
Use clear, accessible language
Include conceptual figures

In rebuttal:

Address every point (even minor ones)
Provide new data when requested
Acknowledge valid criticisms gracefully
Explain significance if questioned

Sample Reviewer Concerns and Responses

Reviewer: “The significance of this work is unclear to a general audience.”

Response: “We have revised the introduction to clarify the broader significance. As now stated in paragraph 1, our findings have implications for [X] because [Y]. We have also added a discussion of how these results inform understanding of [Z] (p. 8, lines 15-28).”

Medical Journals (NEJM, Lancet, JAMA)

What Reviewers Look For

Priority	Weight	Description
Clinical relevance	Critical	Will this change practice?
Methodological rigor	Critical	CONSORT/STROBE compliance
Patient outcomes	Critical	Focus on what matters to patients
Statistical validity	High	Appropriate analysis, power
Generalizability	High	Applicability to broader populations

Review Process

Statistical review: Dedicated statistical reviewer common
Clinical expertise: Subspecialty experts
Methodological review: Focus on study design
Multiple rounds: Revisions often requested

What Gets a Paper Rejected

Major Issues:

Underpowered study
Inappropriate control/comparator
Confounding not addressed
Selective outcome reporting
Missing safety data
Claims exceed evidence

Moderate Issues:

Unclear generalizability
Missing subgroup analyses
Incomplete CONSORT/STROBE reporting
Statistical methods not described adequately

Sample Reviewer Concerns and Responses

Reviewer: “The study appears underpowered for the primary outcome. With 200 participants and an event rate of 5%, there is insufficient power to detect a clinically meaningful difference.”

Response: “We appreciate this concern. Our power calculation (Methods, p. 5) was based on a 5% event rate in the control arm and a 50% relative reduction (to 2.5%). While the observed event rate (4.8%) was close to projected, we acknowledge the confidence interval is wide (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.38-1.12). We have added this as a limitation (Discussion, p. 12). Importantly, the direction and magnitude of effect are consistent with the larger XYZ trial (n=5000), suggesting our findings merit confirmation in a larger study.”

Cell Press Journals

What Reviewers Look For

Priority	Weight	Description
Mechanistic insight	Critical	How does this work?
Depth of investigation	Critical	Multiple approaches, comprehensive
Biological significance	High	Importance for the field
Technical rigor	High	Quantification, statistics, replication
Novelty	Moderate-High	New findings, not just confirmation

Review Process

Extended review: 3+ reviewers typical
Revision cycles: Multiple rounds common
Comprehensive revision: Major new experiments often requested
Detailed assessment: Figure-by-figure evaluation

What Reviewers Expect

Multiple complementary approaches: Same finding shown different ways
In vivo validation: For cell biology claims
Rescue experiments: For knockdown/knockout studies
Quantification: Not just representative images
Complete figure panels: All conditions, all controls

Sample Reviewer Concerns and Responses

Reviewer: “The authors show that protein X is required for process Y using siRNA knockdown. However, a single RNAi reagent is used, and off-target effects cannot be excluded. Additional evidence is needed.”

Response: “We agree that additional validation is important. In the revised manuscript, we now show: (1) two independent siRNAs against protein X produce identical phenotypes (new Fig. S3A-B); (2) CRISPR-Cas9 knockout cells recapitulate the phenotype (new Fig. 2D-E); and (3) expression of siRNA-resistant protein X rescues the phenotype (new Fig. 2F-G). These complementary approaches strongly support the conclusion that protein X is required for process Y.”

ML Conferences (NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR)

What Reviewers Look For

Priority	Weight	Description
Novelty	Critical	New method, insight, or perspective
Technical soundness	Critical	Correct implementation, fair comparisons
Significance	High	Advances the field
Experimental rigor	High	Strong baselines, proper ablations
Reproducibility	Moderate-High	Can others replicate?
Clarity	Moderate	Well-written and organized

Review Process

Area Chair assignment: Grouped by topic
3-4 reviewers: With expertise in the area
Author rebuttal: Opportunity to respond
Reviewer discussion: After rebuttal
AC recommendation: Meta-review

Scoring Dimensions

Typical NeurIPS/ICML scoring:

Dimension	Score Range	What’s Evaluated
Soundness	1-4	Technical correctness
Contribution	1-4	Significance of results
Presentation	1-4	Clarity and organization
Overall	1-10	Holistic assessment
Confidence	1-5	Reviewer expertise

What Gets a Paper Rejected

Critical Issues:

Weak baselines or unfair comparisons
Missing ablation studies
Results not significantly better than SOTA
Technical errors in method or analysis
Overclaiming without evidence

Moderate Issues:

Limited novelty over prior work
Narrow evaluation (few datasets/tasks)
Missing reproducibility details
Poor presentation
Limited analysis or insights

Red Flags for ML Reviewers

❌ “We compare against methods from 2018” (outdated baselines) ❌ “Our method achieves 0.5% improvement” (marginal gain) ❌ “We evaluate on one dataset” (limited generalization) ❌ “Implementation details are in the supplementary” (core info missing) ❌ “We leave ablations for future work” (incomplete evaluation)

Sample Reviewer Concerns and Responses

Reviewer: “The proposed method is only compared against Transformer and Performer. Recent works like FlashAttention and Longformer should be included.”

Response: “Thank you for this suggestion. We have added comparisons to FlashAttention (Dao et al., 2022), Longformer (Beltagy et al., 2020), and BigBird (Zaheer et al., 2020). As shown in new Table 2, our method outperforms all baselines: FlashAttention (3.2% worse), Longformer (5.1% worse), and BigBird (4.8% worse). We also include a new analysis (Section 4.3) explaining why our approach is particularly effective for sequences > 16K tokens.”

HCI Conferences (CHI, CSCW)

What Reviewers Look For

Priority	Weight	Description
Contribution to HCI	Critical	New design, insight, or method
User-centered approach	High	Focus on human needs
Appropriate evaluation	High	Matches claims and contribution
Design rationale	Moderate-High	Justified design decisions
Implications	Moderate	Guidance for future work

Contribution Types

CHI explicitly categorizes contributions:

Type	What Reviewers Expect
Empirical	Rigorous user study, clear findings
Artifact	Novel system/tool, evaluation of use
Methodological	New research method, validation
Theoretical	Conceptual framework, intellectual contribution
Survey	Comprehensive, well-organized coverage

What Gets a Paper Rejected

Critical Issues:

Mismatch between claims and evaluation
Insufficient participants for conclusions
Missing ethical considerations (no IRB)
Technology-focused without user insight
Limited contribution to HCI community

Moderate Issues:

Weak design rationale
Limited generalizability
Missing related work in HCI
Unclear implications for practitioners

Sample Reviewer Concerns and Responses

Reviewer: “The evaluation consists of a short-term lab study with 12 participants. It’s unclear how this system would perform in real-world use over time.”

Response: “We acknowledge this limitation, which we now discuss explicitly (Section 7.2). We have added a 2-week deployment study with 8 participants from our original cohort (new Section 6.3). This longitudinal data shows sustained engagement (mean usage: 4.2 times/day) and reveals additional insights about how use patterns evolve over time. However, we agree that larger and longer deployments would strengthen ecological validity.”

NLP Conferences (ACL, EMNLP)

What Reviewers Look For

Priority	Weight	Description
Task performance	High	SOTA or competitive results
Analysis quality	High	Error analysis, insights
Methodology	High	Sound approach, fair comparisons
Reproducibility	High	Full details provided
Novelty	Moderate-High	New approach or insight

ACL Rolling Review (ARR)

Since 2022, ACL venues use a shared review system:

Reviews transfer between venues
Action editors manage papers
Commitment to specific venue after review

Responsible NLP Checklist

Reviewers check for:

Limitations section (required)
Risks and ethical considerations
Compute/carbon footprint
Bias analysis (when applicable)
Data documentation

Sample Reviewer Concerns and Responses

Reviewer: “The paper lacks analysis of failure cases. When and why does the proposed method fail?”

Response: “We have added Section 5.4 on error analysis. We manually examined 100 errors and categorized them into three types: (1) complex coreference chains (42%), (2) implicit references (31%), and (3) domain-specific knowledge requirements (27%). Figure 4 shows representative examples of each. This analysis reveals that our method particularly struggles with implicit references, which we discuss as a direction for future work.”

Data Mining (KDD, WWW)

What Reviewers Look For

Priority	Weight	Description
Scalability	High	Handles large datasets
Practical impact	High	Real-world applicability
Experimental rigor	High	Comprehensive evaluation
Technical novelty	Moderate-High	New method or application
Reproducibility	Moderate	Code/data availability

What Impresses KDD Reviewers

Large-scale experiments (millions of samples)
Industry deployment or A/B tests
Efficiency comparisons (runtime, memory)
Real datasets alongside benchmarks
Complexity analysis (time and space)

Sample Reviewer Concerns and Responses

Reviewer: “The experiments are limited to small datasets (< 100K samples). How does the method scale to industry-scale data?”

Response: “We have added experiments on two large-scale datasets: (1) ogbn-papers100M (111M nodes, 1.6B edges) and (2) a proprietary e-commerce graph (500M nodes, 4B edges) provided by [company]. Table 4 (new) shows our method scales near-linearly with data size, completing in 42 minutes on ogbn-papers where baselines run out of memory. Section 5.5 (new) provides detailed scalability analysis.”

General Rebuttal Strategies

Do’s

✅ Address every point: Even minor issues ✅ Provide evidence: New experiments, data, or citations ✅ Be specific: Reference exact sections, lines, figures ✅ Acknowledge valid criticisms: Show you understand the concern ✅ Be concise: Reviewers read many rebuttals ✅ Stay professional: Even for unfair reviews ✅ Prioritize critical issues: Address major concerns first

Don’ts

❌ Be defensive: Accept valid criticisms ❌ Argue without evidence: Back up claims ❌ Ignore points: Even ones you disagree with ❌ Be vague: Be specific about changes ❌ Attack reviewers: Maintain professionalism ❌ Promise future work: Do the work now if possible

Rebuttal Template

We thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback. We address 
the main concerns below:

**R1/R2 Concern: [Shared concern from multiple reviewers]**

[Your response with specific actions taken and references to where 
changes are made in the revised manuscript]

**R1-1: [Specific point]**

[Response with evidence]

**R2-3: [Specific point]**

[Response with evidence]

We have also made the following additional improvements:
• [Improvement 1]
• [Improvement 2]

Pre-Submission Self-Review

Before submitting, review your paper as a reviewer would:

All Venues

Are claims supported by evidence?
Are baselines appropriate and recent?
Is the contribution clearly stated?
Are limitations acknowledged?
Is reproducibility information complete?

High-Impact Journals

Is significance clear to a non-specialist?
Are figures accessible and clear?
Are controls adequate for claims?

Medical Journals

Is CONSORT/STROBE compliance complete?
Are absolute numbers reported?
Is clinical relevance clear?

ML Conferences

Are ablations comprehensive?
Are comparisons fair?
Is reproducibility information complete?

HCI Conferences

Is the user-centered perspective clear?
Is the evaluation appropriate for claims?
Are design implications actionable?

Reference: Venue_Writing_Styles

Venue Writing Styles: Master Guide

This guide provides an overview of how writing style varies across publication venues. Understanding these differences is essential for crafting papers that read like authentic publications at each venue.

Last Updated: 2024

The Style Spectrum

Scientific writing style exists on a spectrum from broadly accessible to deeply technical:

Accessible ◄─────────────────────────────────────────────► Technical

Nature/Science    PNAS    Cell    IEEE Trans    NeurIPS    Specialized
   │                │       │         │            │         Journals
   │                │       │         │            │            │
   ▼                ▼       ▼         ▼            ▼            ▼
General           Mixed   Deep     Field      Dense ML      Expert
audience         depth  biology   experts    researchers    only

Quick Style Reference

Venue Type	Audience	Tone	Voice	Abstract Style
Nature/Science	Educated non-specialists	Accessible, engaging	Active, first-person OK	Flowing paragraphs, no jargon
Cell Press	Biologists	Mechanistic, precise	Mixed	Summary + eTOC blurb + Highlights
Medical (NEJM/Lancet)	Clinicians	Evidence-focused	Formal	Structured (Background/Methods/Results/Conclusions)
PLOS/BMC	Researchers	Standard academic	Neutral	IMRaD structured or flowing
IEEE/ACM	Engineers/CS	Technical	Passive common	Concise, technical
ML Conferences	ML researchers	Dense technical	Mixed	Numbers upfront, key results
NLP Conferences	NLP researchers	Technical	Varied	Task-focused, benchmarks

High-Impact Journals (Nature, Science, Cell)

Core Philosophy

High-impact multidisciplinary journals prioritize broad significance over technical depth. The question is not “Is this technically sound?” but “Why should a scientist outside this field care?”

Key Writing Principles

Start with the big picture: Open with why this matters to science/society
Minimize jargon: Define specialized terms; prefer common words
Tell a story: Results should flow as a narrative, not a data dump
Emphasize implications: What does this change about our understanding?
Accessible figures: Schematics and models over raw data plots

Structural Differences

Nature/Science vs. Specialized Journals:

Element	Nature/Science	Specialized Journal
Introduction	3-4 paragraphs, broad → specific	Extensive literature review
Methods	Often in supplement or brief	Full detail in main text
Results	Organized by finding/story	Organized by experiment
Discussion	Implications first, then caveats	Detailed comparison to literature
Figures	Conceptual schematics valued	Raw data emphasized

Example: Same Finding, Different Styles

Nature style:

“We discovered that protein X acts as a molecular switch controlling cell fate decisions during development, resolving a longstanding question about how stem cells choose their destiny.”

Specialized journal style:

“Using CRISPR-Cas9 knockout in murine embryonic stem cells (mESCs), we demonstrate that protein X (encoded by gene ABC1) regulates the expression of pluripotency factors Oct4, Sox2, and Nanog through direct promoter binding, as confirmed by ChIP-seq analysis (n=3 biological replicates, FDR < 0.05).”

Medical Journals (NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ)

Core Philosophy

Medical journals prioritize clinical relevance and patient outcomes. Every finding must connect to practice.

Key Writing Principles

Patient-centered language: “Patients receiving treatment X” not “Treatment X subjects”
Evidence strength: Careful hedging based on study design
Clinical actionability: “So what?” for practicing physicians
Absolute numbers: Report absolute risk reduction, not just relative
Structured abstracts: Required with labeled sections

Structured Abstract Format (Medical)

Background: [1-2 sentences on problem and rationale]

Methods: [Study design, setting, participants, intervention, outcomes, analysis]

Results: [Primary outcome with confidence intervals, secondary outcomes, adverse events]

Conclusions: [Clinical implications, limitations acknowledged]

Evidence Language Conventions

Study Design	Appropriate Language
RCT	”Treatment X reduced mortality by…”
Observational	”Treatment X was associated with reduced mortality…”
Case series	”These findings suggest that treatment X may…”
Case report	”This case illustrates that treatment X can…”

ML/AI Conferences (NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, CVPR)

Core Philosophy

ML conferences value novelty, rigorous experiments, and reproducibility. The focus is on advancing the state of the art with empirical evidence.

Key Writing Principles

Contribution bullets: Numbered list in introduction stating exactly what’s new
Baselines are critical: Compare against strong, recent baselines
Ablations expected: Show what parts of your method matter
Reproducibility: Seeds, hyperparameters, compute requirements
Limitations section: Honest acknowledgment (increasingly required)

Introduction Structure (ML Conferences)

[Paragraph 1: Problem motivation - why this matters]

[Paragraph 2: Limitations of existing approaches]

[Paragraph 3: Our approach at high level]

Our contributions are as follows:
• We propose [method name], a novel approach to [problem] that [key innovation].
• We provide theoretical analysis showing [guarantees/properties].
• We demonstrate state-of-the-art results on [benchmarks], improving over [baseline] by [X%].
• We release code and models at [anonymous URL for review].

Abstract Style (ML Conferences)

ML abstracts are dense and numbers-focused:

“We present TransformerX, a novel architecture for long-range sequence modeling that achieves O(n log n) complexity while maintaining expressivity. On the Long Range Arena benchmark, TransformerX achieves 86.2% average accuracy, outperforming Transformer (65.4%) and Performer (78.1%). On language modeling, TransformerX matches GPT-2 perplexity (18.4) using 40% fewer parameters. We provide theoretical analysis showing TransformerX can approximate any continuous sequence-to-sequence function.”

Experiment Section Expectations

Datasets: Standard benchmarks, dataset statistics
Baselines: Recent strong methods, fair comparisons
Main results table: Clear, comprehensive
Ablation studies: Remove/modify components systematically
Analysis: Error analysis, qualitative examples, failure cases
Computational cost: Training time, inference speed, memory

CS Conferences (ACL, EMNLP, CHI, SIGKDD)

ACL/EMNLP (NLP)

Task-focused: Clear problem definition
Benchmark-heavy: Standard datasets (GLUE, SQuAD, etc.)
Error analysis valued: Where does it fail?
Human evaluation: Often expected alongside automatic metrics
Ethical considerations: Bias, fairness, environmental cost

CHI (Human-Computer Interaction)

User-centered: Focus on humans, not just technology
Study design details: Participant recruitment, IRB approval
Qualitative accepted: Interview studies, ethnography valid
Design implications: Concrete takeaways for practitioners
Accessibility: Consider diverse user populations

SIGKDD (Data Mining)

Scalability emphasis: Handle large data
Real-world applications: Industry datasets valued
Efficiency metrics: Time and space complexity
Novelty in methods or applications: Both paths valid

Adapting Between Venue Types

Journal → ML Conference

When converting a journal paper to conference format:

Condense introduction: Remove extensive background
Add contribution list: Explicitly enumerate contributions
Restructure results: Organize as experiments, add ablations
Remove separate discussion: Integrate interpretation briefly
Add reproducibility section: Seeds, hyperparameters, code

ML Conference → Journal

When expanding a conference paper to journal:

Expand related work: Comprehensive literature review
Detailed methods: Full algorithmic description
More experiments: Additional datasets, analyses
Extended discussion: Implications, limitations, future work
Appendix → main text: Move important details up

Specialized → High-Impact Journal

When targeting Nature/Science/Cell from a specialized venue:

Lead with significance: Why does this matter broadly?
Reduce jargon by 80%: Replace technical terms
Add conceptual figures: Schematics, models, not just data
Story-driven results: Narrative flow, not experiment-by-experiment
Broaden discussion: Implications beyond the subfield

Voice and Tone Guidelines

Active vs. Passive Voice

Venue	Preference	Example
Nature/Science	Active encouraged	”We discovered that…”
Cell	Mixed	”Our results demonstrate…”
Medical	Passive common	”Patients were randomized to…”
IEEE	Passive traditional	”The algorithm was implemented…”
ML Conferences	Active preferred	”We propose a method that…”

First Person Usage

Venue	First Person	Example
Nature/Science	Yes (we)	“We show that…”
Cell	Yes (we)	“We found that…”
Medical	Sometimes	”We conducted a trial…”
IEEE	Less common	Prefer “This paper presents…”
ML Conferences	Yes (we)	“We introduce…”

Hedging and Certainty

Claim Strength	Language
Strong	”X causes Y” (only with causal evidence)
Moderate	”X is associated with Y” / “X leads to Y”
Tentative	”X may contribute to Y” / “X suggests that…”
Speculative	”It is possible that X…” / “One interpretation is…”

Common Style Errors by Venue

Nature/Science Submissions

❌ Too technical: “We used CRISPR-Cas9 with sgRNAs targeting exon 3…” ✅ Accessible: “Using gene-editing technology, we disabled the gene…”

❌ Dry opening: “Protein X is involved in cellular signaling…” ✅ Engaging opening: “How do cells decide their fate? We discovered that…”

ML Conference Submissions

❌ Vague contributions: “We present a new method for X” ✅ Specific contributions: “We propose Method Y that achieves Z% improvement on benchmark W”

❌ Missing ablations: Only showing full method results ✅ Complete: Table showing contribution of each component

Medical Journal Submissions

❌ Missing absolute numbers: “50% reduction in risk” ✅ Complete: “50% relative reduction (ARR 2.5%, NNT 40)”

❌ Causal language for observational data: “Treatment caused improvement” ✅ Appropriate: “Treatment was associated with improvement”

Quick Checklist Before Submission

All Venues

Abstract matches venue style (flowing vs. structured)
Voice/tone appropriate for audience
Jargon level appropriate
Figures match venue expectations
Citation style correct

High-Impact Journals (Nature/Science/Cell)

Broad significance clear in first paragraph
Non-specialist can understand abstract
Story-driven results narrative
Conceptual figures included
Implications emphasized

ML Conferences

Contribution list in introduction
Strong baselines included
Ablation studies present
Reproducibility information complete
Limitations acknowledged