ijcai-related-work

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>