--- name: ijcai-related-work description: 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. --- # 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 ```text [Eligibility] clear / needs declaration / risky [Closest works] <3-5 items and distinction> [Resubmission package] [Dual-submission risk] [Novelty sentence] ```