--- name: international-symposium-on-experimental-robotics description: Use when targeting International Symposium on Experimental Robotics (ISER) or deciding whether a computer-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes conference fit, framing, evidence bar, submission-cycle checks, rebuttal posture, and desk-reject risks for experimental robotics. --- # International Symposium on Experimental Robotics (ISER) ## Conference positioning International Symposium on Experimental Robotics (ISER) is a top computer-science conference venue for experimental robotics, field robots, manipulation, navigation, embodied learning, and real-world validation. It rewards a robotics paper where experimental evidence and real-world performance are the contribution. Treat this skill as a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool for conference submission strategy, not as a substitute for the current year's CFP, author kit, ethics policy, or submission portal. Because CS conferences change deadlines, templates, page limits, review workflow, artifact rules, AI-use policy, and rebuttal formats every cycle, always verify the live official instructions before making a submission-ready recommendation. Start from the official source anchor recorded for this venue in `../../resources/conference-roster.md` and `../../resources/official-source-map.md`. ## When to trigger - The author names ISER / International Symposium on Experimental Robotics as the target venue. - A manuscript in experimental robotics needs a conference-fit read before being formatted or submitted. - The paper must be re-framed from journal style or arXiv style into a selective CS conference narrative. - The author needs an evidence-gap, anonymity, artifact, rebuttal, or re-routing diagnosis for this venue. ## Scope & topic fit - Core fit: experimental robotics, field robots, manipulation, navigation, embodied learning, and real-world validation. - Best submissions make a precise contribution type visible: algorithm, theorem, system, dataset, benchmark, empirical finding, design artifact, tool, or socio-technical analysis. - The paper should explain why the result matters to ISER's reviewers, not just why it is interesting to the authors' lab or product context. - Position related work against the most recent conference-cycle papers in this venue and its closest siblings; stale comparisons are a common early-review weakness. - If the contribution is interdisciplinary, state which part is CS research and which part is domain evidence. ## Venue-specific calibration - Reviewer lens: Treat ISER as a experimental robotics venue whose reviewers expect the scope and evidence to match its own community. Do not submit a generic CS paper until the introduction names the exact subcommunity, contribution type, and proof or empirical standard. - Contribution hook to foreground: the venue-specific contribution bar. - Scope vocabulary to use naturally in the abstract and introduction: experimental robotics, field robots, manipulation, navigation, embodied learning, and real-world validation. - Distinctive fingerprint for reviewer calibration: experimental, robotics, field, robots, manipulation, navigation, embodied, learning, real-world, validation, venue-specific, contribution, iser-robotics. - Official anchor domain: www.iser-robotics.org. Quote annual rules only after opening that source and the current-year CFP/author kit. ## Method & evidence bar - Report hardware, simulation, environment, task distribution, reset procedure, and failure cases; embodied evidence must be inspectable. - Compare against meaningful robot-learning, planning, or control baselines under matched assumptions. - Separate simulation gains from real-world transfer and quantify reliability, not only best-case success. - For ISER, the evidence must support the venue-specific signature: a robotics paper where experimental evidence and real-world performance are the contribution. - Include limitations, negative results, compute/resource reporting, data provenance, and ethics details when they affect the claim. ## Structure & house style - Lead with the robot task and system constraint before the algorithmic component. - Use video or supplementary material only as allowed by the current anonymous-review policy. - Use the current official template exactly; do not guess page limits, font sizes, supplement rules, anonymity exceptions, or camera-ready requirements from old cycles. - The introduction should answer: problem, why now, what is new, why this venue, and what evidence proves the claim. - Put the strongest result in the main paper, not only in the appendix or supplement; reviewers should not have to reconstruct the contribution. ## Official-cycle checklist - Open the live official venue page: https://www.iser-robotics.org/ - Re-check the current cycle's CFP, author kit, submission system, abstract/paper deadlines, page limits, supplementary-material rules, anonymity policy, dual-submission policy, ethics policy, AI-use policy, artifact/code/data expectations, rebuttal/author-response format, and camera-ready requirements. - Confirm the review workflow and portal: OpenReview / CMT / HotCRP / PCS / START or society portal, as specified for the current cycle. - Check whether accepted papers require in-person presentation, separate registration, artifact badges, proceedings copyright, or post-acceptance release forms. - If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win. ## Pre-submission self-check - [ ] One sentence states why this manuscript belongs at ISER, using the venue's scope rather than generic "top conference" language. - [ ] The claim is calibrated to the evidence: no broader than the datasets, proofs, systems, user studies, deployments, or threat model support. - [ ] Related work includes the nearest current-cycle experimental robotics papers and explains the technical delta. - [ ] The paper satisfies the current official template, anonymity, ethics, artifact, and rebuttal requirements. - [ ] The main paper is self-contained enough for reviewers to evaluate novelty and correctness without hunting through external links. ## Common desk-reject triggers - Simulation-only evidence for a claim about real robots. - No clear task distribution, few trials, or missing failure analysis. - A learning curve without robot-specific insight or system integration. - Formatting, anonymity, dual-submission, external-link, or supplement violations under the current-year policy. - A contribution framed for a neighboring field while giving ISER reviewers too little technical or empirical substance. ## Re-routing decision If the paper misses ISER's bar, compare against `ieee-international-conference-on-robotics-and-automation` / `ieee-rsj-international-conference-on-intelligent-robots-and-systems` / `robotics-science-and-systems` / `conference-on-robot-learning`. Re-route based on contribution type, not prestige: theory to a theory venue, systems to a systems venue, application-heavy work to a domain venue, and early ideas to workshops or shorter tracks when the official CFP supports them. ## Output format ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] International Symposium on Experimental Robotics (ISER) [Contribution type] algorithm / theory / system / dataset / benchmark / empirical / design / security / other [Main evidence gap] [Official items to re-check] CFP / author kit / deadline / format / anonymity / ethics / AI-use / artifact / rebuttal / camera-ready [Top rejection risk] [Re-route suggestion] ```