IJCAI Related Work
Use this to audit novelty, prior work, and submission eligibility. Reopen the current CFP and
submissions FAQ because resubmission and dual-submission rules are policy-sensitive.
Positioning checks
- Distinguish non-archival workshop or poster versions from formally published proceedings
with DOI, ISBN, or ISSN.
- If the paper was rejected by another peer-reviewed conference in the last 12 months,
prepare the required anonymized rejected version and reviews; the response cover letter may
be optional depending on current rules.
- Cite author preprints and prior work in third person. A non-anonymous arXiv version may be
allowed, but the IJCAI submission itself must remain anonymous.
- Do not submit a paper that is under review, accepted, or published at another formal
archival venue during the IJCAI review period.
- If a substantially shorter extended abstract, poster, or position paper exists, declare it
when current rules require and explain the new technical content.
- Make the related-work section decision-useful: closest competing claims, why they are
insufficient, and exactly what is new here.
Positioning across IJCAI's breadth
Because IJCAI spans symbolic AI, search, planning, KR, constraint reasoning, multi-agent, game
theory, ML, NLP, and vision, the closest prior work may live in a different subcommunity than
the authors'. A reviewer from that adjacent area will know the literature you skipped.
| Prior-work source |
Eligibility/anonymity handling |
Positioning duty |
| Archival proceedings (DOI/ISBN/ISSN) |
Cite normally; counts as published |
Distinguish your claim from it |
| Non-archival workshop/poster |
Usually citable, not a dual-submission bar |
Declare if a shorter prior version |
| Author arXiv preprint |
Non-anonymous arXiv may be allowed; submission stays anonymous |
Cite in third person |
| Recent rejected version (≤12 months) |
Prepare anonymized rejected version and reviews |
Disclose per current rules |
| Concurrent archival submission |
Not permitted during the review period |
Resolve before upload |
Worked vignette: a search paper missing an adjacent baseline
A bidirectional-search paper cites only recent search venues and omits a closely related
planning-community result. An IJCAI planning reviewer flags the gap as a novelty threat. Fix:
add the planning result to the closest-works set, state precisely why it does not subsume the
new bound, and write a one-sentence novelty contrast a non-search reviewer can verify. If the
paper is a shortened version of a prior workshop poster, declare that and describe the added
technical content.
Reviewer pushback and the venue-specific fix
- "Missed obvious prior art." Search the adjacent subfield, not just your home venue, since
IJCAI reviewers cross subcommunities.
- "Looks like double submission." Confirm no concurrent archival submission and prepare the
resubmission package if a recent rejection exists.
- "Related work is a list, not an argument." Convert it to closest claims, why insufficient, and
what is new.
Output format
[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Closest works] <3-5 items and distinction>
[Resubmission package] <needed/not needed/unknown>
[Dual-submission risk] <none/issues>
[Novelty sentence] <IJCAI-ready contribution contrast>
1---2name: ijcai-related-work3description: Use when positioning an IJCAI or IJCAI-ECAI submission against archival AI literature, arXiv preprints, workshop papers, prior rejected versions, dual-submission rules, shortened prior versions, and resubmission-information requirements.4---56# IJCAI Related Work78Use this to audit novelty, prior work, and submission eligibility. Reopen the current CFP and9submissions FAQ because resubmission and dual-submission rules are policy-sensitive.1011## Positioning checks1213- Distinguish non-archival workshop or poster versions from formally published proceedings14 with DOI, ISBN, or ISSN.15- If the paper was rejected by another peer-reviewed conference in the last 12 months,16 prepare the required anonymized rejected version and reviews; the response cover letter may17 be optional depending on current rules.18- Cite author preprints and prior work in third person. A non-anonymous arXiv version may be19 allowed, but the IJCAI submission itself must remain anonymous.20- Do not submit a paper that is under review, accepted, or published at another formal21 archival venue during the IJCAI review period.22- If a substantially shorter extended abstract, poster, or position paper exists, declare it23 when current rules require and explain the new technical content.24- Make the related-work section decision-useful: closest competing claims, why they are25 insufficient, and exactly what is new here.2627## Positioning across IJCAI's breadth2829Because IJCAI spans symbolic AI, search, planning, KR, constraint reasoning, multi-agent, game30theory, ML, NLP, and vision, the closest prior work may live in a different subcommunity than31the authors'. A reviewer from that adjacent area will know the literature you skipped.3233| Prior-work source | Eligibility/anonymity handling | Positioning duty |34| --- | --- | --- |35| Archival proceedings (DOI/ISBN/ISSN) | Cite normally; counts as published | Distinguish your claim from it |36| Non-archival workshop/poster | Usually citable, not a dual-submission bar | Declare if a shorter prior version |37| Author arXiv preprint | Non-anonymous arXiv may be allowed; submission stays anonymous | Cite in third person |38| Recent rejected version (≤12 months) | Prepare anonymized rejected version and reviews | Disclose per current rules |39| Concurrent archival submission | Not permitted during the review period | Resolve before upload |4041## Worked vignette: a search paper missing an adjacent baseline4243A bidirectional-search paper cites only recent search venues and omits a closely related44planning-community result. An IJCAI planning reviewer flags the gap as a novelty threat. Fix:45add the planning result to the closest-works set, state precisely why it does not subsume the46new bound, and write a one-sentence novelty contrast a non-search reviewer can verify. If the47paper is a shortened version of a prior workshop poster, declare that and describe the added48technical content.4950## Reviewer pushback and the venue-specific fix5152- "Missed obvious prior art." Search the adjacent subfield, not just your home venue, since53 IJCAI reviewers cross subcommunities.54- "Looks like double submission." Confirm no concurrent archival submission and prepare the55 resubmission package if a recent rejection exists.56- "Related work is a list, not an argument." Convert it to closest claims, why insufficient, and57 what is new.5859## Output format6061```text62[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky63[Closest works] <3-5 items and distinction>64[Resubmission package] <needed/not needed/unknown>65[Dual-submission risk] <none/issues>66[Novelty sentence] <IJCAI-ready contribution contrast>67```
brycewang-stanford