Percom Related Work

PerCom Related Work

Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. PerCom reviewers are close to the ubicomp 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 dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising authors.

Positioning checks

• Separate the pervasive-computing novelty from the engineering effort. What is new: a recognizer, a sensing modality, a context model, a system, a dataset, or an evidence regime (e.g., the first cross-subject / free-living evaluation) nobody had covered?
• Cover the ubicomp lanes. PerCom reviewers expect the flagship venues and the IMWUT journal, not just the papers nearest your method (see the table). A bibliography missing the obvious sibling work 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.
• Preserve double-blindness. Cite your own prior work in the third person (do not omit it), and never link reviewers to an identity-revealing preprint, dataset owner, or homepage.
• Declare overlap with any prior workshop/WiP version or concurrent submission; do not re-submit archival work as new.

Ubicomp literature lanes

A bibliography that cites only your own subarea tells a reviewer the delta may be smaller than claimed; one that reaches the flagships, the IMWUT journal, and the relevant datasets signals command of the field.

Delta-first positioning vignette

Suppose the paper proposes a cross-subject eating-episode recognizer and a released dataset. Its nearest neighbors: an IMWUT paper on within-subject eating detection (same task, but not cross-subject), a MobiCom RF-sensing eating study (different modality, infrastructure-bound), and a prior wrist-HAR dataset (data, no personalization method). The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — cross-subject generalization where the IMWUT work stayed within-subject, a commodity-wearable modality where the RF study needed infrastructure, and a personalization method plus a new dataset where the prior release offered only data.

Concurrent and prior-version judgment calls

[Concurrent arXiv work]   cite neutrally, state the technical difference, avoid unverifiable
                          priority claims; keep the citation double-blind
[Your workshop/WiP version] PerCom WiP and workshop papers are short/early -- usually citable, but
                          confirm the current CFP wording and phrase so anonymity survives
[Prior short/poster version] declare the overlap and state what the full paper adds beyond it
[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).
• A "new" recognizer that re-reports a prior dataset's numbers without a new question or split.
• Citations exclusively to non-ubicomp venues, signaling the paper may be a visitor rerouted without reframing for a human-centric audience.

Output format

[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Lanes covered] <ubicomp-flagships / mobile-systems / sensor-systems / wearables-HAR / adjacent>
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> one-line delta>
[Archival-overlap risk] <none / declare: what>
[Novelty sentence] <PerCom-ready contribution contrast against the nearest prior work>

Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → PerCom-Skills/skills/percom-related-work/SKILL.md