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>
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → IJCAI-Skills/skills/ijcai-related-work/SKILL.md
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---5
6
7# IJCAI Related Work
8
9Use this to audit novelty, prior work, and submission eligibility. Reopen the current CFP and
10submissions FAQ because resubmission and dual-submission rules are policy-sensitive.
11
12## Positioning checks
13
14- Distinguish non-archival workshop or poster versions from formally published proceedings
15 with DOI, ISBN, or ISSN.
16- If the paper was rejected by another peer-reviewed conference in the last 12 months,
17 prepare the required anonymized rejected version and reviews; the response cover letter may
18 be optional depending on current rules.
19- Cite author preprints and prior work in third person. A non-anonymous arXiv version may be
20 allowed, but the IJCAI submission itself must remain anonymous.
21- Do not submit a paper that is under review, accepted, or published at another formal
22 archival venue during the IJCAI review period.
23- If a substantially shorter extended abstract, poster, or position paper exists, declare it
24 when current rules require and explain the new technical content.
25- Make the related-work section decision-useful: closest competing claims, why they are
26 insufficient, and exactly what is new here.
27
28## Positioning across IJCAI's breadth
29
30Because IJCAI spans symbolic AI, search, planning, KR, constraint reasoning, multi-agent, game
31theory, ML, NLP, and vision, the closest prior work may live in a different subcommunity than
32the authors'. A reviewer from that adjacent area will know the literature you skipped.
33
34| Prior-work source | Eligibility/anonymity handling | Positioning duty |
35| --- | --- | --- |
36| Archival proceedings (DOI/ISBN/ISSN) | Cite normally; counts as published | Distinguish your claim from it |
37| Non-archival workshop/poster | Usually citable, not a dual-submission bar | Declare if a shorter prior version |
38| Author arXiv preprint | Non-anonymous arXiv may be allowed; submission stays anonymous | Cite in third person |
39| Recent rejected version (≤12 months) | Prepare anonymized rejected version and reviews | Disclose per current rules |
40| Concurrent archival submission | Not permitted during the review period | Resolve before upload |
41
42## Worked vignette: a search paper missing an adjacent baseline
43
44A bidirectional-search paper cites only recent search venues and omits a closely related
45planning-community result. An IJCAI planning reviewer flags the gap as a novelty threat. Fix:
46add the planning result to the closest-works set, state precisely why it does not subsume the
47new bound, and write a one-sentence novelty contrast a non-search reviewer can verify. If the
48paper is a shortened version of a prior workshop poster, declare that and describe the added
49technical content.
50
51## Reviewer pushback and the venue-specific fix
52
53- "Missed obvious prior art." Search the adjacent subfield, not just your home venue, since
54 IJCAI reviewers cross subcommunities.
55- "Looks like double submission." Confirm no concurrent archival submission and prepare the
56 resubmission package if a recent rejection exists.
57- "Related work is a list, not an argument." Convert it to closest claims, why insufficient, and
58 what is new.
59
60## Output format
61
62```text
63[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
64[Closest works] <3-5 items and distinction>
65[Resubmission package] <needed/not needed/unknown>
66[Dual-submission risk] <none/issues>
67[Novelty sentence] <IJCAI-ready contribution contrast>
68```
69
70---
71
72**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `IJCAI-Skills/skills/ijcai-related-work/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain