EDBT Related Work
Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. EDBT reviewers are close to the data-management
literature and expect to see where your paper sits relative to the nearest prior work — stated as a
delta, not a list. Reopen the current call for the resubmission-ban wording, the blind policy,
and dual-submission rules before advising authors.
Positioning checks
- Separate the database contribution from the engineering effort. What is new: a mechanism, a
scalable algorithm, an empirical/benchmarking finding, an abstraction, or an evaluation regime
nobody had covered?
- Cover the data-management lanes. EDBT reviewers expect the flagship venues and the journals,
not just the papers nearest your method (see the table). A bibliography missing the obvious SIGMOD
or VLDB predecessor reads as unaware.
- Write delta-first. Each closely related paper gets one sentence naming what it did and one
naming what you do differently — not a summary. Position, don't catalog.
- Mind the EDBT/ICDT boundary. If you cite theory results, cite them to ICDT (or the theory
literature) correctly; do not blur a co-located theory paper into an EDBT systems lineage, and do
not claim a theory contribution your systems paper does not make.
- Declare overlap with any prior workshop/short version or concurrent submission; do not
re-submit archival work as new.
Data-management literature lanes
| Lane |
Typical venues |
What EDBT reviewers check |
| DB-systems flagships |
SIGMOD, VLDB/PVLDB, ICDE, EDBT |
Whether the nearest systems technique/study is compared or distinguished |
| Database theory |
ICDT, PODS |
Whether borrowed theoretical results are credited to their real origin |
| Specialized / applied |
e.g. spatial, temporal, graph, streaming, data-integration venues |
Whether prior work on your specific data type or task is acknowledged |
| Database journals |
VLDBJ, TODS, TKDE |
Whether deeper journal-length treatments of the topic are engaged |
| Adjacent fields (when relevant) |
ML, IR, systems (OSDI/SOSP), HPC |
Whether methods borrowed from outside DB are cited to their origin |
A bibliography that cites only your own subarea tells a reviewer the delta may be smaller than
claimed; one that reaches the flagships and journals signals command of the field.
Delta-first positioning vignette
Suppose the paper proposes an adaptive skew-handling operator for distributed joins. Its nearest
neighbors: a flagship paper on static skew-aware partitioning (plan-time, no runtime adaptation), a
journal study characterizing skew prevalence in real workloads (measurement, no operator), and a
streaming system with dynamic repartitioning (different setting, full-reshuffle cost). The novelty
sentence should name all three contrasts — runtime adaptation where the flagship was plan-time,
a mechanism where the journal offered only characterization, and selective re-splitting where the
streaming system reshuffled everything.
The 12-month resubmission ban and prior-version calls
[EDBT resubmission ban] work rejected/withdrawn from an EDBT track cannot return to any EDBT
track in the SAME paper format for 12 months; confirm status before
citing/relying on the earlier version
[Concurrent arXiv work] cite neutrally, state the technical difference; if the cycle is
double-blind, keep the citation anonymous
[Your workshop/short ver] usually citable, but declare the overlap and state what the full paper
adds; confirm against the current CFP
[Prior demo/vision] an EDBT demo or Vision paper on the idea is not the full paper; declare
it and state the delta
[Archival status unclear] declare the overlap in the submission form rather than guessing a
chair's interpretation
Eligibility red flags
- Substantial text overlap with a published paper by the same authors (self-plagiarism risk).
- Re-reporting a prior system's numbers without a new mechanism, workload, or question.
- Work still inside the 12-month EDBT same-format resubmission cooldown.
- Citations exclusively to non-DB venues, signaling the paper may be a visitor rerouted without
reframing — naturalize the framing for a database audience first.
Output format
[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky (resubmission ban?)
[Lanes covered] <systems flagships / theory / specialized / journals / adjacent>
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> one-line delta>
[EDBT/ICDT boundary] <theory cited to its real origin? yes/no>
[Archival-overlap risk] <none / declare: what>
[Novelty sentence] <EDBT-ready contribution contrast against the nearest prior work>
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-related-work/SKILL.md
1---2name: edbt-related-work3description: Use when positioning an EDBT submission against the data-management literature across SIGMOD, VLDB/PVLDB, ICDE, EDBT, the co-located ICDT, and the database journals (VLDBJ, TODS, TKDE), writing delta-first contrast rather than a citation catalog, and handling the 12-month EDBT resubmission ban, preprints, and prior-version overlap.4---5
6
7# EDBT Related Work
8
9Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. EDBT reviewers are close to the data-management
10literature and expect to see where your paper sits relative to the nearest prior work — stated as a
11**delta**, not a list. Reopen the current call for the resubmission-ban wording, the blind policy,
12and dual-submission rules before advising authors.
13
14## Positioning checks
15
16- **Separate the database contribution from the engineering effort.** What is new: a mechanism, a
17 scalable algorithm, an empirical/benchmarking finding, an abstraction, or an evaluation regime
18 nobody had covered?
19- **Cover the data-management lanes.** EDBT reviewers expect the flagship venues and the journals,
20 not just the papers nearest your method (see the table). A bibliography missing the obvious SIGMOD
21 or VLDB predecessor reads as unaware.
22- **Write delta-first.** Each closely related paper gets one sentence naming what it did and one
23 naming what you do differently — not a summary. Position, don't catalog.
24- **Mind the EDBT/ICDT boundary.** If you cite theory results, cite them to **ICDT** (or the theory
25 literature) correctly; do not blur a co-located theory paper into an EDBT systems lineage, and do
26 not claim a theory contribution your systems paper does not make.
27- **Declare overlap** with any prior workshop/short version or concurrent submission; do not
28 re-submit archival work as new.
29
30## Data-management literature lanes
31
32| Lane | Typical venues | What EDBT reviewers check |
33|---|---|---|
34| DB-systems flagships | SIGMOD, VLDB/PVLDB, ICDE, EDBT | Whether the nearest systems technique/study is compared or distinguished |
35| Database theory | ICDT, PODS | Whether borrowed theoretical results are credited to their real origin |
36| Specialized / applied | e.g. spatial, temporal, graph, streaming, data-integration venues | Whether prior work on your specific data type or task is acknowledged |
37| Database journals | VLDBJ, TODS, TKDE | Whether deeper journal-length treatments of the topic are engaged |
38| Adjacent fields (when relevant) | ML, IR, systems (OSDI/SOSP), HPC | Whether methods borrowed from outside DB are cited to their origin |
39
40A bibliography that cites only your own subarea tells a reviewer the delta may be smaller than
41claimed; one that reaches the flagships and journals signals command of the field.
42
43## Delta-first positioning vignette
44
45Suppose the paper proposes an adaptive skew-handling operator for distributed joins. Its nearest
46neighbors: a flagship paper on static skew-aware partitioning (plan-time, no runtime adaptation), a
47journal study characterizing skew prevalence in real workloads (measurement, no operator), and a
48streaming system with dynamic repartitioning (different setting, full-reshuffle cost). The novelty
49sentence should name all three contrasts — runtime adaptation where the flagship was plan-time,
50a mechanism where the journal offered only characterization, and selective re-splitting where the
51streaming system reshuffled everything.
52
53## The 12-month resubmission ban and prior-version calls
54
55```text
56[EDBT resubmission ban] work rejected/withdrawn from an EDBT track cannot return to any EDBT
57 track in the SAME paper format for 12 months; confirm status before
58 citing/relying on the earlier version
59[Concurrent arXiv work] cite neutrally, state the technical difference; if the cycle is
60 double-blind, keep the citation anonymous
61[Your workshop/short ver] usually citable, but declare the overlap and state what the full paper
62 adds; confirm against the current CFP
63[Prior demo/vision] an EDBT demo or Vision paper on the idea is not the full paper; declare
64 it and state the delta
65[Archival status unclear] declare the overlap in the submission form rather than guessing a
66 chair's interpretation
67```
68
69## Eligibility red flags
70
71- Substantial text overlap with a published paper by the same authors (self-plagiarism risk).
72- Re-reporting a prior system's numbers without a new mechanism, workload, or question.
73- Work still inside the 12-month EDBT same-format resubmission cooldown.
74- Citations exclusively to non-DB venues, signaling the paper may be a visitor rerouted without
75 reframing — naturalize the framing for a database audience first.
76
77## Output format
78
79```text
80[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky (resubmission ban?)
81[Lanes covered] <systems flagships / theory / specialized / journals / adjacent>
82[Nearest 3 works] <work -> one-line delta>
83[EDBT/ICDT boundary] <theory cited to its real origin? yes/no>
84[Archival-overlap risk] <none / declare: what>
85[Novelty sentence] <EDBT-ready contribution contrast against the nearest prior work>
86```
87
88---
89
90**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `EDBT-Skills/skills/edbt-related-work/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain