# Icassp Related Work > Use when positioning an ICASSP submission across the signal-processing literature — IEEE SPS journals (TSP, TASLP, SPL, TIP and siblings), sibling conferences (Interspeech, ICIP, EUSIPCO, WASPAA), and ML venues, citing normally under single-blind review, and sharpening the technical delta against the nearest current-cycle work in four pages. - Skill: `thedixitjain/icassp-related-work` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add thedixitjain/icassp-related-work` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thedixitjain/icassp-related-work/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Marketing & Growth - Author: thedixitjain (https://skillmd.com/u/thedixitjain) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thedixitjain/icassp-related-work --- # ICASSP Related Work Use this to audit novelty and positioning. ICASSP is single-blind, so you **cite normally** — no anonymized references, no hiding your own prior work. Reopen the current call only for dual-submission and prior-publication rules. The four-page limit makes related work a precision instrument, not a survey. ## Positioning checks - Separate the **signal-processing novelty** (a new estimator, transform, representation, objective, architecture, or resource) from an engineering improvement. - Compare against both the **IEEE SPS journal** literature and the **conference** literature; a reviewer from the relevant technical committee knows both. - Position against the **nearest current-cycle work**, not a five-year-old baseline; ICASSP reviewers work in the subfield and notice a stale comparison immediately. - Because review is single-blind, cite your own prior work in normal first person and make the incremental delta explicit rather than obscuring it. ## Literature lanes table | Lane | Typical venues | What ICASSP reviewers check | |---|---|---| | SPS journals | IEEE TSP, TASLP, SPL, TIP, TIFS, TMM, TCI, TSIPN, JSTSP, OJSP | Whether the closest journal result is acknowledged and the delta stated | | ICASSP + IEEE conferences | prior ICASSP, ICIP, ICME, SLT, ASRU | Whether the nearest conference method is compared or distinguished | | Speech/audio siblings | Interspeech, WASPAA, EUSIPCO, DCASE | Whether a paper mis-attributed to ICASSP actually lives here | | ML venues | NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, AAAI | Whether generic-ML priors are credited without claiming their generality | A bibliography that cites only ML venues and no SPS journals tells a committee reviewer the paper may be rediscovering a known signal-processing result — a recognizable weakness that benchmark strength does not repair. ## The sibling-venue attribution trap Signal-processing landmarks are scattered across venues, and misattributing one is a credibility hit. Common confusions to check before citing: - Papers you *think* are ICASSP that are actually **Interspeech** (much of the speech-synthesis and self-supervised-speech canon) or **journal** papers (TASLP separation work). - **ICIP** for image results and **EUSIPCO/WASPAA** for European and audio-workshop results. - Verify each cited venue against dblp (`conf/icassp/`, `journals/`) rather than trusting memory; see [`../../resources/exemplars/library.md`](../../resources/exemplars/library.md) for the guard list. ## Positioning vignette Suppose the paper proposes a low-complexity beamformer for a hearing device. Its nearest neighbors: a TASLP paper with higher complexity, a prior ICASSP paper with a similar structure but no latency budget, and an ML paper with a black-box network. The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — lower complexity than the journal method, an explicit latency budget the prior ICASSP work lacked, and interpretability the black-box model lacked — in one or two sentences, because four pages cannot afford a paragraph per contrast. ## Concurrent-work judgment - Independently concurrent arXiv work: cite neutrally, state the technical difference, and avoid priority claims a reviewer cannot verify. - Your own workshop or prior-conference version: cite it in first person and state exactly what this paper adds, since single-blind review does not require hiding it. - If a venue's archival status is unclear for dual-submission purposes, declare the overlap rather than gambling on an organizer's interpretation. ## Output format ```text [Novelty type] estimator / transform / representation / objective / architecture / resource [Nearest 3 works] venue (verified) -> technical delta> [Lane coverage] SPS journals / ICASSP+conf / siblings / ML — gaps? [Attribution risk] [Novelty sentence] ``` --- **Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `ICASSP-Skills/skills/icassp-related-work/SKILL.md`