RecSys Related Work
Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. Reopen the current Call for Contributions for
dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising authors.
Positioning checks
- Separate the recommendation contribution from generic ML improvement: a new ranking
objective, user/item modeling idea, evaluation protocol, off-policy estimator, or empirical
insight about deployed behavior.
- Cover the recommendation subfields your claim touches: collaborative filtering, sequential/
session models, off-policy/counterfactual evaluation, fairness/diversity/exposure, and — for any
empirical claim — the reproducibility-critique line.
- Treat ACM Digital Library, journal, and formal conference proceedings as archival unless current
rules say otherwise.
- Cite arXiv and prior-version work so double-blind review survives; do not point reviewers to
identity-revealing pages.
- Explain overlap with any concurrent or prior version, and do not submit duplicate archival work.
Neighbor-venue coverage table
RecSys is a single-domain venue, but its neighbors publish recommendation-relevant work. A
reviewer checks whether you cite the right neighbor, not just RecSys itself.
| Neighbor venue |
What it contributes to your related work |
Reviewer check |
| SIGIR |
Ranking models, IR evaluation, neural retrieval |
Did you distinguish recommendation from ad-hoc retrieval framing? |
| KDD |
Large-scale mining, the sampled-metrics critique |
Is the scalability or evaluation-methodology neighbor acknowledged? |
| WSDM / TheWebConf |
Web-scale recommendation, graph and CF methods |
Is the nearest web-recommendation method compared? |
| UAI |
Foundational ranking (e.g., BPR) and probabilistic modeling |
Are canonical recommendation methods cited to their true venue, not RecSys? |
| Reproducibility line |
"Are we really making much progress?" and follow-ups |
Does your evaluation answer the tuned-baseline critique head on? |
A bibliography that cites only RecSys papers tells a reviewer you may have missed the method that
already solved this at a neighbor venue — a recognizable reject pattern that benchmark strength
does not repair.
Positioning vignette
Imagine the paper proposes an exposure-corrected session ranker. Its nearest neighbors: a SIGIR
neural ranker with no exposure correction, a KDD paper on sampled-metric bias, and a prior RecSys
counterfactual-embedding paper. The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — exposure
handling where the SIGIR line ignored it, full-ranking evaluation answering the KDD critique, and
a session-level objective where the prior RecSys work was static.
Concurrent-work judgment calls
- Independently concurrent arXiv work: cite neutrally, state the technical difference, avoid
priority claims reviewers cannot verify.
- Your own prior version: verify its archival status against the current CFP and phrase the
citation so double-blind review survives.
- When unsure whether a venue is archival, declare the overlap on the submission form rather than
gambling on a chair's interpretation.
Output format
[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky
[Closest subfields] <CF / sequential / off-policy / fairness / reproducibility>
[Nearest 3 works] <work -> distinction (with true venue)>
[Archival-overlap risk] <none / issues>
[Novelty sentence] <RecSys-ready recommendation contribution contrast>
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → RecSys-Skills/skills/recsys-related-work/SKILL.md
1---2name: recsys-related-work3description: Use when positioning an ACM RecSys submission against recommender-systems literature and its neighbors (SIGIR, KDD, WSDM, TheWebConf, UAI), including the reproducibility-critique line, arXiv and prior versions, concurrent work, ACM Digital Library archival status, and the citation coverage RecSys reviewers expect across recommendation subfields.4---567# RecSys Related Work89Use this to audit novelty and eligibility. Reopen the current Call for Contributions for10dual-submission, anonymity, and prior-publication rules before advising authors.1112## Positioning checks1314- Separate the **recommendation** contribution from generic ML improvement: a new ranking15 objective, user/item modeling idea, evaluation protocol, off-policy estimator, or empirical16 insight about deployed behavior.17- Cover the recommendation subfields your claim touches: collaborative filtering, sequential/18 session models, off-policy/counterfactual evaluation, fairness/diversity/exposure, and — for any19 empirical claim — the **reproducibility-critique** line.20- Treat ACM Digital Library, journal, and formal conference proceedings as archival unless current21 rules say otherwise.22- Cite arXiv and prior-version work so double-blind review survives; do not point reviewers to23 identity-revealing pages.24- Explain overlap with any concurrent or prior version, and do not submit duplicate archival work.2526## Neighbor-venue coverage table2728RecSys is a single-domain venue, but its neighbors publish recommendation-relevant work. A29reviewer checks whether you cite the *right* neighbor, not just RecSys itself.3031| Neighbor venue | What it contributes to your related work | Reviewer check |32|---|---|---|33| SIGIR | Ranking models, IR evaluation, neural retrieval | Did you distinguish recommendation from ad-hoc retrieval framing? |34| KDD | Large-scale mining, the sampled-metrics critique | Is the scalability or evaluation-methodology neighbor acknowledged? |35| WSDM / TheWebConf | Web-scale recommendation, graph and CF methods | Is the nearest web-recommendation method compared? |36| UAI | Foundational ranking (e.g., BPR) and probabilistic modeling | Are canonical recommendation methods cited to their true venue, not RecSys? |37| Reproducibility line | "Are we really making much progress?" and follow-ups | Does your evaluation answer the tuned-baseline critique head on? |3839A bibliography that cites only RecSys papers tells a reviewer you may have missed the method that40already solved this at a neighbor venue — a recognizable reject pattern that benchmark strength41does not repair.4243## Positioning vignette4445Imagine the paper proposes an exposure-corrected session ranker. Its nearest neighbors: a SIGIR46neural ranker with no exposure correction, a KDD paper on sampled-metric bias, and a prior RecSys47counterfactual-embedding paper. The novelty sentence should name all three contrasts — exposure48handling where the SIGIR line ignored it, full-ranking evaluation answering the KDD critique, and49a session-level objective where the prior RecSys work was static.5051## Concurrent-work judgment calls5253- Independently concurrent arXiv work: cite neutrally, state the technical difference, avoid54 priority claims reviewers cannot verify.55- Your own prior version: verify its archival status against the current CFP and phrase the56 citation so double-blind review survives.57- When unsure whether a venue is archival, declare the overlap on the submission form rather than58 gambling on a chair's interpretation.5960## Output format6162```text63[Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky64[Closest subfields] <CF / sequential / off-policy / fairness / reproducibility>65[Nearest 3 works] <work -> distinction (with true venue)>66[Archival-overlap risk] <none / issues>67[Novelty sentence] <RecSys-ready recommendation contribution contrast>68```6970---7172**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `RecSys-Skills/skills/recsys-related-work/SKILL.md`
thedixitjain